Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time, and committed.

TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday 24th April.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (FALMOUTH) BILL

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Exchange, Sale

Mr. F. J. Erroll: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what are the reasons for the slow progress being made on the completion of the Sale telephone exchange; and if he will, in the interests of economy, proceed with the installation work more quickly in view of the fact that additional expenses are often occasioned by leisurely rates of construction and installation.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): The building is now complete and installation of equipment should begin this month. All the work on this exchange is proceeding as quickly as possible.

Mr. Erroll: Does my hon. Friend realise how grateful my constituents will be for the most excellent improvement in the speed with which this exchange is being completed?

Bristol

Mr. Coldrick: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what number of

applications for telephones he has received since October last from Bristol; and how many have been supplied.

Mr. Gammans: One thousand, seven hundred and thirty applications were received, and 1,414 telephones have been supplied.

Kiosk, Merstham

Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he will arrange for telephone kiosks to be installed on the new housing estate at Merstham, Surrey.

Mr. Gammans: One kiosk will be provided as soon as a site is agreed upon with the local authority. New cables are required before other kiosks can be provided.

The Hartlepools

Mr. David Jones: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many separate telephones and how many shared lines have been installed in The Hartlepools telephone district since 30th October, 1951.

Mr. Gammans: The reply is, 63 exclusive lines and 85 shared lines.

Mr. D. Jones: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many applications for telephone installations were outstanding in The Hartlepools telephone district on 1st April, 1952.

Mr. Gammans: There were 225 on the waiting list, and 75 were being provided or were under inquiry.

Kiosks, Glasgow (Damage)

Mrs. Alice Cullen: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will state the extent of damage to telephone kiosks caused by vandalism in Glasgow in the past 12 months; and the cost of repairing the same.

Mr. Gammans: In the past 12 months there were 393 cases of damage to the structure or equipment of kiosks in Glasgow, costing £1,653 to repair. In addition 7,000 panes of glass were broken, costing £1,170 to replace.

Mrs. Cullen: Will the hon. Gentleman consider schemes which could reduce some of this harm in Glasgow, and save the expense? Surely there is some way of dealing with this trouble and of saving the expense?

Mr. Gammans: It is a very serious state of affairs, and we shall be grateful for any help given to us by anyone to help to cure it.

Mrs. Cullen: Will the hon. Gentleman consider a scheme if I put it before him?

Mr. Gammans: Of course.

Mr. A. Woodburn: Will the hon. Gentleman approach the Secretary of State for Scotland to see whether education authorities could do something to bring this matter to the notice of the children?

Mr. Gammans: That, in fact, has been done, but the education authorities are rather reluctant to give too many lectures on this subject—they have been asked to do so by many authorities—because they do not believe that this mischief is primarily done by the children.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that putting ordinary glass in these kiosks is quite unsuitable in some areas where these incidents repeatedly occur? Would he consider putting in cube glass—thick panes—that can stand up to wear and tear?

Mr. Gammans: That is one of the matters now being considered—to what extent it is possible to strengthen these kiosks—but what one would like to see is a cessation of this wanton damage.

Brixton

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what is the latest total of outstanding applications for telephones at the Brixton exchange; and what were its figures for the corresponding dates in 1951 and 1950.

Mr. Gammans: 1,500 at 31st March, 1952. At the corresponding dates in 1951 and 1950 the numbers were 1,213 and 999.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this, as is the case in so many other respects, shows the steady deterioration there has been since the present Administration and he himself took over?

Mr. Gammans: If the hon. Gentleman waits for the answer to the next Question, he may not be so pessimistic about the present Administration.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Is my hon. Friend aware that the deterioration started in 1950, and probably a good deal earlier?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many new telephone subscribers were connected to the Brixton exchange during the past six months; and how many he estimates will be granted during the next six months.

Mr. Gammans: There were 176 connected during the last six months. The estimate for the next six months is 110, but the rate of connection should be substantially increased towards the end of this year, when the work of extending the exchange is completed.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am still very pessimistic as a result of the answer that he has just given? Will he, perhaps, consider circulating this Question and answer to all the outstanding applicants for connection to the Brixton exchange?

Personal Case

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General when Mrs. Haddon, 268, Essex Road, who has been waiting for a telephone for four years, may expect to receive one.

Mr. Gammans: I regret that a date cannot at present be given. A new cable is required, but because of many urgent commitments elsewhere, and the general limitation on capital development, it is not possible to undertake this work at present.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that four years is a very long time to wait? Will he do his best to expedite this case, about which there are special circumstances?

Mr. Gammans: Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to be able to put on the telephone immediately all those who have been waiting four years or more.

Sir Edward Keeling: On a point of order. Is it not an abuse of Question time to put a Question like No. 35 down, considering that there are hundreds of thousands of people who have been waiting more than four years?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Further to that point of order. Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that Questions of this type were repeatedly put down to his predecessor, and that, if any abuse has occurred, it occurred in those days?

Mr. Speaker: In answer to the point of order, the Question is in order. There may well have been special circumstances about this case of which I am unaware.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Licences, Scotland

Mr. John Taylor: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many television licences had been taken out in Scotland by 1st April, 1952.

Mr. Gammans: Twelve thousand five hundred and sixty on 31st March.

Mr. Taylor: Will the Minister not agree that this disposes of the facetious and unworthy statements in some London newspapers that the Scots have been having their television sets without buying licences?

Mr. Gammans: I am not yet in a position to say to what extent licences have been taken out compared with the number of sets sold in Scotland.

Mr. Taylor: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that the number of sets bought would be greatly increased if he could persuade the Scottish local authorities to waive some of the many too stringent regulations which they have made for the erection of aerials?

Mrs. Jean Mann: Does the Minister think it fair that the Scots should be criticised for not immediately taking out licences when they are surely entitled to see if their sets are working? Would the hon. Gentleman convey something of the gratitude that some of us feel towards the engineers in Scotland for the absolutely perfect reception which we are getting?

Mr. Gammans: I can assure the hon. Lady that my remarks were not meant to be taken too seriously, and certainly did not refer to Scotland in particular.

Station, Wenvoe

Mr. Robert Crouch: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how much of the county of Dorset will be covered by the new television station at Wenvoe.

Mr. Gammans: The B.B.C. expects that the whole of Dorset will be covered by the high-power television transmitter at Wenvoe. Reception should be satisfactory throughout the county, but in those parts more remote from the transmitter it will depend to a greater extent on the use of a suitably placed directional receiving aerial and freedom from interference. At first, transmissions will be started on lower power, and this will mean that reception will be more subject to interference particularly in the southern half of the county.

Mr. Crouch: Is my hon. Friend aware that that reply will be appreciated very much in the county, and is he further aware that we hope he will soon be able to put the transmission on high power, because the people of Dorset have made a great contribution towards the life of this country?

Pontop Pike

Mr. Charles Grey: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General (1) if he will consider transferring the present low-power transmitter from Kirk o'Shotts to Pontop Pike as soon as the high-power transmitter has been installed at Kirk o'Shotts; and if he will make a statement thereon;
(2) if he will consider transferring the low-power transmitter from Wenvoe to Pontop Pike when the high-power transmitter has been installed; and if he will make a statement thereon.

Mr. Gammans: The difficulty of establishing a television service from Pontop Pike does not lie in the provision of a low-power transmitter, since one could be made available in due course from one of the high-powered stations. The other capital investment involved such as a suitable building, a high mast and other equipment, cannot yet be approved and I regret, therefore, that I cannot add anything at present to the statement I made in reply to the hon. Member on 2nd April.

Mr. J. Hall: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will give an estimate of the cost of the transfer of a redundant low-power television transmitter from Wenvoe or Kirk o'Shotts to Pontop Pike.

Mr. Gammans: The cost of dismantling and reassembling a low-power


television transmitter would be about £3,000, but this would be only a comparatively small part of the total cost in erecting a transmitter station.

Mr. George Chetwynd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when he provides television equipment for the North-East, he will get considerably more revenue from it than he seems to be getting from Scotland?

Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the low-power transmission is already giving very great satisfaction in Scotland? Can he give any idea when this will become redundant through the introduction of the new transmitter?

Mr. Gammans: The trouble is not the actual transmitter but what goes with it. It requires a steel mast, it requires buildings and it requires a lot of other things as well as television receiving sets. These are the factors which prevent us from putting up this transmitting set, and not the cost of the low-power transmitter itself or the cost of removing it from somewhere else.

Mr. J. Hall: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what practical difficulties prevent the transfer of a redundant low-power television transmitter to Pontop Pike.

Mr. Gammans: There would be no practical difficulty in transferring a redundant transmitter to Pontop Pike when it is possible to undertake the other work required to provide a television service.

Mr. Hall: Taking into account the small amount of money involved, and the satisfaction which would be given to a great number of people, does not the Minister think it would be better if he could change his mind?

Mr. Gammans: Nothing would give me greater pleasure, but it is not a small amount of money which is involved. The transmitter itself is a very small part of the total cost.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: In view of the fact that Northern Ireland is the only region which has no television coverage whatever, will my hon. Friend resist these voluble and vocal attempts of other places to jump the queue?

Mr. Gammans: A pledge has been given to the North-East Coast, and that pledge will be honoured.

Interference

Mr. C. R. Hobson: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many of the committees set up to deal with the problem of the emission of electromagnetic energy in relation to television interference have reported; and when he expects to be able to make the appropriate regulations under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949.

Mr. Gammans: Two, Sir. Regulations will be laid before the House as soon as possible but I regret that I cannot give a date at present.

Mr. Hobson: Will the Regulations which are to be made deal with the emission of electro-magnetic energy from petrol-driven motorcars?

Mr. Gammans: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Could my hon. Friend say whether it is a fact that these Regulations have been made out but have been referred back to the Advisory Committee? When does he expect the committee's views upon them? Is my hon. Friend aware that this is a matter on which we have been trying to get some answer in this House from both him and the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson), who asked the Question, for some years?

Mr. Gammans: The point is, as I explained last week, that the Advisory Committee have asked that the Regulations should be submitted to them. The reason for the delay in making these Regulations is the difficulty of defining a precise method of determining the degree of interference. I can assure both the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) and my hon. Friend that I hope there will be no undue delay in bringing them before the House.

Mr. William Paling: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, and when, to eliminate interference with television reception by power-driven boats.

Mr. Gammans: The regulation dealing with power-driven boats will be the same one as that relating to new motorcars. My noble Friend has agreed that the


Advisory Committee shall be consulted on the terms of the regulation, and when this has been done it will be laid before the House.

Mr. Paling: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that people living in the vicinity of the area in which power boats are in action allege that the interference is much worse than that from any other form of electrical vehicle or other type of vehicle? Is he aware that these people are very annoyed because their pictures are suffering through very serious interference? I hope he will take note of this.

Mr. Gammans: I can assure the House that we should very much like to get this matter settled as quickly as we can. I know there is a lot of misgiving about it.

B.B.C. Charter

Mr. Barnett Janner: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what is causing the delay in arriving at a decision in respect of a new agreement or charter being entered into with the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Mr. Gammans: The only reason for the delay is that the Government wish to give adequate consideration to this very important matter.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that the House also wants to give adequate consideration to any proposal which the Government have to put forward? When is he likely to be able to give us the White Paper which was promised, so that we know what the Government's intentions are?

Mr. Gammans: The House will have the opportunity for which the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), asks.

Mr. Janner: When?

Mr. Gammans: The late Government took nearly six months before a White Paper was laid before the House. This is a matter into which it would be most unwise to rush.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that the Government are giving time for big business to bring pressure to bear in order to get commercial sponsoring?

Mr. Gammans: That is a most ungenerous thought, if I may say so. The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that there is not a word of truth in it.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Do I understand from that answer that the Government are not giving way to big business?

Mr. Gammans: The Government are not giving way to anybody in this matter. The question is that they require adequate time before the White Paper is laid before the House. The late Government took nearly six months. This Government have taken only a short time.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called the next Question, and the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) has asked it.

Reception, Cornwall

Mr. F. H. Hayman: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what is being done to improve radio reception in West Cornwall.

Mr. Gammans: I understand from the B.B.C. that they are making an extensive investigation into reception of the West Home Service programme in Cornwall to find out whether the strength of the signal can be increased. The main hope of improvement must, however, lie in the provision of very high frequency sound services when that is possible.

Mr. Hayman: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that a somewhat similar answer was given last July, and that we in Cornwall are very dissatisfied with the B.B.C. engineers and with the Post Office in this respect? Is he aware that we expect something better to be done at once? Cornwall is the most important county in England, and we shall not have a television service for a long time to come, so that we have every right to expect this research, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will pursue it further.

Mr. Gammans: As Cornwall is a county which is dissatisfied with both the present Postmaster-General and the past one, it shows a fine sense of impartiality.

Mr. Hayman: In view of the unsatisfactory answer that I have received, I beg


to give notice that I shall raise the question on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Sponsored Programmes (Application)

Mr. David Logan: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what representations have been received from organisations of large business firms for sponsored or commercial broadcasting.

Mr. Gammans: One firm of advertising agents on behalf of five large industrial companies has recently applied for permission to provide sponsored television programmes.

Mr. John Profumo: Is my hon. Friend aware that on this side of the House we are getting sick and tired of these constant attacks on private enterprise business—[Interruption]—I have not finished—particularly in view of the abysmal failure of nationalised concerns? In the case of this problem of the future of the B.B.C., would it not be better to regard it solely from the point of view of the benefit of the public—rather than from that of the mildewed mentality of party politics?

Mr. C. R. Attlee: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the very strong objection to the idea of sponsored television up and down the country among people of all political views—except those who put private profit before public benefit?

Lady Tweedsmuir: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is also a large body of opinion throughout the country which believes, as regards television, that a certain number of commercial sponsored programmes would be a good thing?

Mr. Gammans: I suggest to hon. Members of this House, including the Leader of the Opposition, that they wait until the White Paper is published.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate this very wide issue now.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Government Departments (Telegram and Telephone Services)

Brigadier Terence Clarke: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what attempt has now been made to see that

each Government Department is debited with the cost of telegram and telephone service provided by the Post Office; and what progress has been made in this connection since he took office.

Mr. Gammans: I hope to make a statement on this subject shortly after Easter.

Post Box, Merstham

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he will arrange for a post box to be installed on the new housing estate at Merstham, Surrey.

Mr. Gammans: Yes, Sir as a matter of urgency.

Contracts (Severance)

Mr. William Paling: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what expense, due to the severance of contracts, will result from the decisions to start no new buildings this year.

Mr. Gammans: I do not expect there will be any.

Postal Orders

Mr. Hobson: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what was the profit on the issue of postal orders in 1951–52.

Mr. Gammans: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of 19th March to the hon. Member for Abertillery (Rev. LI. Williams).

Mr. Hobson: In view of that reply, will the hon. Gentleman take steps to withdraw the Post Office (Amendment) Bill, in view of the intention further to increase the poundage on postal orders, which already show a substantial profit; or will he approach one of his hon. Friends so that an Amendment may be put down to the Bill that it "be read this day six months"?

Mr. Gammans: Far from there being a substantial profit, there is an estimated deficit of £130,000.

Defence Work (Cost)

Mr. Hobson: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what is the estimated cost of defence work falling on the Post Office Vote in 1952–53.

Mr. Gammans: I am assuming that the hon. Member is referring to provision


made in the Post Office Estimates for 1952–53 laid before the House in February and not to capital expenditure. The debt annuities for the year 1952–53 include a sum of about £600,000 in respect of work which has been specially carried out in connection with the present defence programme starting 1950–51. In addition to the debt redemption, there will, of course, also be a charge for maintenance, but since the plant is new, that should not be very large.

Mr. Hobson: In view of that reply, will the hon. Gentleman approach his noble Friend with a view to the capital allocation for the Post Office being increased for the ensuing year?

Mr. Gammans: The Question does not refer to the capital allocation. It refers to the Post Office Vote. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Order Paper, he will see that he has put down "Post Office Vote," using a capital V.

Birth Control Literature

Mrs. Cullen: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will introduce legislation to make it an offence to send literature on birth control by post to persons who have not requested the issue of such literature to them.

Mr. Gammans: No, Sir.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: Is it not a fact that recently the Minister of Health made a statement about this matter? As literature of this kind is being sent through the post, is there nothing we can do about it?

Mr. Gammans: This is a highly controversial question about which it would be necessary to lay before the House special legislation, which would not primarily be the concern of the Post Office.

Mrs. Cullen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the sending of this literature through the post causes annoyance and embarrassment to people who have not requested the delivery of such literature?

Private Mail (Opening and Detention)

Mr. John Rankin: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General under what regulations made by his Department is censorship of private mail conducted in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Gammans: There is no censorship of private mail in the United Kingdom. The conditions under which a postal packet can be opened or detained by the Post Office are specified in Sections 17, 18 and 56 of the Post Office Act, 1908, and in the Foreign Parcels (Customs) Warrant, 1885, and in the Foreign Postal Packets (Customs) Warrant, 1948, of which I am sending the hon. Member copies.

Mr. Rankin: How many postal packets have been detained for inspection in Scotland during the last six months? Can the hon. Gentleman give us the corresponding figures for England and Wales and also for Northern Ireland?

Mr. Gammans: The hon. Gentleman had better put that question down.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a question which I could not get put down? Is he going to address himself—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the question was out of order when tendered at the Table, it is equally out of order as a supplementary question.

Mr. Rankin: Further to that point of order. Is it, then, proper Ministerial practice for the hon. Gentleman to incite me to put down a Question that is out of order?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know that there was much incitement about it.

Air Mail (Carriage Rates)

Mr. W. R. D. Perkins: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General in what way the rate paid by his Department for the carriage of air mail varies from the international rate agreed by the Universal Postal Union.

Mr. Gammans: The internationally agreed rates are maximum figures and apply only where a postal administration uses a foreign air line. So far as first-class mails of United Kingdom origin are concerned, rates paid for the use of foreign carriers vary from 2.43 to 5.25 gold francs per tonne-kilometre, according to the route and carrier. The rates paid to British carriers vary from the sterling equivalent of 2.9 to 5.32 gold francs per tonne-kilometre.

Mr. Hobson: Can the hon. Gentleman say how that rate compares with the internal rate pound for pound per cargo?

Mr. Gammans: Yes. It is, so far as B.O.A.C. is concerned, five-and-a-half times the freight rate, and so far as B.E.A. is concerned, two-and-a-half times the freight rate.

Mr. Perkins: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what rate is paid to British European Airways for mail on international services and on internal services respectively; and how these two rates compare with that paid to foreign airlines.

Mr. Gammans: I assume that my hon. Friend refers to letter mails of United Kingdom origin. The rate paid to British European Airways is 132 pence per long ton/mile for international services; the rate paid to foreign air lines similarly to European destinations, is 3.0 gold francs per tonne-kilometre, equivalent to 137 pence per ton-mile. On internal services, British European Airways are the sole carrier; the rate paid varies on different routes, but is based on the freight rate, plus 33⅓ per cent.

Mr. Perkins: Is the Minister aware that if British European Airways received payments equal to that paid to their foreign competitors by the Post Office, their revenue would be increased by over £60,000 a year? Why is this preference given to foreign airlines over British airlines?

Mr. Ernest Davies: Does the Assistant Postmaster-General realise that subsidising British airlines is consequently subsidising the Post Office?

Mr. F. Beswick: Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that whereas this rate for air freight is higher than that for ordinary cargo, a priority is required for air freight which does not apply to ordinary cargo?

Mr. Gammans: As indicated by these supplementary questions, there is very strong controversy on the question of whether or not British European Airways are subsidised by the Post Office or vice versa.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is it not a fact that B.E.A. are making a profit on the present rates?

Mr. Perkins: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Officers (Age)

Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many officers serving in the Royal Air Force of air rank are under 40 years of age.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence (Mr. Nigel Birch): I have been asked to reply.
None, Sir.

Air Commodore Harvey: Does not my hon. Friend think that this is a very highly unsatisfactory state of affairs, and does he realise that officers who held air rank during the war have gone back to being group captains for seven years? Will he not take a leaf out of the Army's book, where a major-general attained that rank at the age of 38? This is a young man's service and if we could get some younger men at the top, it might be possible to get better aircraft.

Mr. Birch: If my hon. and gallant Friend would look into the situation, he would find that promotion prospects in the Air Force are certainly not worse than in the other two Services.

Mr. Ian Harvey: Does my hon. Friend not agree that we have excellent precedents for youthful promotion in the Air Force?

Mr. Birch: During war promotion is always very much quicker.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: May we have an assurance that the Under-Secretary of State for Air is all right?

Mr. Birch: My hon. Friend is ill.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I am sorry.

U.K.-Based Staff (Overseas Service)

Mr. Janner: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of home-based civil servants of his Department serving abroad in the clerical, executive and works group, including mechanical


and electrical engineers, scientific, technical, draughtsmen and other categories, respectively.

Mr. Birch: As the answer consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: Could my hon. Friend indicate whether he considers the position to be satisfactory, or whether his Department is under-staffed or overstaffed in this respect? If it is overstaffed, does he hope to make reductions?

Mr. Birch: I do not think that the position of postings overseas is unsatisfactory at the present time.

Following is the table:


AIR MINISTRY U.K. BASED STAFF SERVING ABROAD AS AT 1ST APRIL, 1952—




Total numbers


EXECUTIVE

91


CLERICAL

82


WORKS GROUP:




Professional:




Civil Engineering
54



Mechanical and Electrical
28



Surveying
20



Lands
6



Drawing Office:




Architectural
19



Mechanical and Electrical
19



Technical:




Civil Engineering
100



Mechanical and Electrical
102



Surveying
24



Others:




Stores Grade
7





379


SCIENTIFIC

207


OTHERS

230


Total staff (U.K. based) overseas

989

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

London Airport (Bad Weather Alternate)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation if he can now make a statement about the development of a bad weather alternate to London Airport.

The Minister of Civil Aviation (Mr. John Maclay): I presume the Question refers to the proposed development of Gatwick Airport as a bad weather alternate and as a base for some other air transport activities. I hope to be able to make a statement about this in the near future.

Mr. Beswick: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that six months ago he said he was going to work fast in this and other matters? Can he say how near is the "near future"?

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member knows very well some of the difficult problems connected with this matter, which is being pressed on as fast as possible.

Mr. John Grimston: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the important thing is to make London Airport an all-weather airport?

Mr. Rankin: Will the hon. Gentleman also keep before him the claims of Prestwick as a Transatlantic air terminal?

Mr. Maclay: As the hon. Member knows, so far as is possible, a good deal is being done there.

Mr. Frederick Gough: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable apprehension with regard to the Gatwick proposal amongst the inhabitants of the new town of Crawley? Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will proceed slowly in order to avoid any unnecessary inconvenience and annoyance to people in that very important new town?

Mr. Maclay: No, Sir, I could not give an assurance to proceed slowly. I will give an assurance that I will proceed with great care. My hon. Friend has brought the question of noise to my attention on several occasions.

Aircraft Insurance (Rome Meeting)

Mr. Gerald Williams: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation if the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organisation has announced the date of a meeting to complete the new convention on compulsory insurance of aircraft.

Mr. Maclay: Yes, Sir. The meeting to complete the Convention on Damage caused by Foreign Aircraft to Third Parties on the Surface will open in Rome on 9th September.

Independent Operators (Aerodrome Facilities)

Mr. J. Grimston: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation whether he will give an assurance that the facilities at Blackbushe Aerodrome are adequate for their regular use by Hermes aircraft.

Mr. Maclay: The runways at Blackbushe are adequate for regular use by Hermes aircraft and the airport is equipped with suitable navigational aids. The passenger accommodation is being extended to deal with expected increases in traffic.

Mr. Grimston: As long as the passenger-handling facilities are inadequate, will my hon. Friend consider allowing London Airport to be used for these aircraft.

Mr. Maclay: I think the answer to that is covered by the hon. Member's next Question.

Mr. J. Grimston: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation whether he will implement Section 16, subsection 3, of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, and allow Hermes aircraft operated by independent operators on scheduled operations to use London Airport until such time as an alternative airport with adequate facilities is available.

Mr. Maclay: Section 16 (3) of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, deals with the facilities to be provided for charter and not scheduled services.
As regards the second part of the Question, I will certainly consider any requests made by independent operators of scheduled services although, with the introduction of tourist travel, the facilities at London Airport are likely to be used to capacity in the future.

Mr. Grimston: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that specific pledges were given at the time of the passing of the Act of 1949, and that the previous two Governments have tried to wriggle out of those pledges.

Mr. Maclay: I am examining these points very carefully.

Aerodrome, West Hartlepool

Mr. D. Jones: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation whether, in view of the fact that Boldon airport is no longer available for immediate use as an international airport and the fact that West Hartlepool airport is the only available airport to serve Tees-side, he will take steps to see that this airport is given all possible facilities, particularly designation and advertisement in the "Air Pilot," as an airport where Customs facilities are available on demand.

Mr. Maclay: I regret that, in the absence of evidence of substantial overseas air traffic from West Hartlepool, I cannot agree to the designation of the aerodrome, but special arrangements have been made for the Customs clearance at West Hartlepool of the two regular international services expected to use it in 1952. The facilities at present available at West Hartlepool aerodrome are already recorded in the "Air Pilot."

Low Flying Aircraft, London

Dr. Reginald Bennett: asked the Minister of Civil Aviation what circumstances have led to the recent marked increase in the number of large aircraft flying over the centre of London at low altitude, even at times when the wind was not along the east-west runway at Heath Row; and what is the identity and purpose of the De Havilland Rapide aircraft that frequently circles Westminster at about 1,000 feet.

Mr. Maclay: I am unable to confirm the statements on which the Question is based. Generally speaking, there are fewer aircraft flying over the centre of London when the wind is in the east. If my hon. Friend cares to give me further information I shall be glad to investigate the matter.

Dr. Bennett: Is my hon. Friend aware that this morning at 9.45 a Viking crossed over this House at about 2,000 feet going south-easterly, another one at 9.55, another one at 10.15, a D.C.6 at 10.25, a Viking at 10.40 going south-west and another Viking going south-east at 11 o'clock? If these were over Westminster, is not this the longest possible transit of London, for it entails about 40 miles of flying over built-up areas, and is not every one of these transits adding to the risk of another accident like the ones New York has had?

Mr. Maclay: My hon. Friend's very interesting observations will certainly be noted with care and will be examined.

B.E.A. Internal Services

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

59. MR. JOHN RANKIN,—To ask the Minister of Civil Aviation why he proposes to return British European Airways internal services to private enterprise, in


view of the fact that the services are now being successfully operated.

At the end of Questions—

Mr. Rankin: In view of the Prime Minister's statement this afternoon about the nationalised industries, and in view of the nature of my Question, which deals with much the same subject, could I ask permission from you, Mr. Speaker, to get the Minister to give a reply to my Question?

Mr. Speaker: No, I am afraid not. I have not been asked by the Minister to facilitate him to give an answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES

Mr. J. Grimond: asked the Prime Minister what progress has been made in his investigations into the nationalised industries.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): It is only gradually that the full results of the policy of nationalisation become apparent. The most noticeable case at present is, of course, in the sphere of transport, where severe increases in London Transport fares have taken place under the authority of a judicial body over which neither Her Majesty's Government nor the House of Commons have any control. Further heavy increases in railway passenger fares outside London are pending as the result of the decisions of the Tribunal.
We intend to de-nationalise road haulage at the earliest possible moment. Details of the Government's intentions in this respect will be announced shortly after the Easter Recess.
It was announced in the King's Speech on 6th November that a Bill would be introduced to annul the Iron and Steel Act with a view to the re-organisation of the industry under free enterprise and with an adequate measure of public supervision. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply amplified this on 12th November and said that the creation of an Iron and Steel Board, embracing the whole industry, would be an essential feature of the Government's proposals. Meanwhile he has given a direction to the Corporation not to alter the financial structure or management of the publicly-owned companies or to sell or dispose of the undertakings or securities without his consent.
Serious increases in the cost of gas and electricity do not require any special comment by me today.
Good results have been achieved in the coalfields.

Mr. Attlee: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain, for the benefit of the House, how the de-nationalisation of road transport can do anything to prevent the increase in railway fares?

The Prime Minister: If the Leader of the Opposition will look at the Question asked by the hon. Member, he will see that it was of a general character and dealt not merely with road transport but with the nationalised industries.

Mr. Attlee: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if he had been present at the debate last night, he would know the difference between Conservative promises on generalities and their dealings with the particular? I was interested because I understand—and the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that all authorities on transport are agreed that if we are to keep the railways going they must be integrated with the road services. As he seems to have discovered a different way, I thought that perhaps he could throw some light on it.

The Prime Minister: As to the question of generalisations versus particularisations, as I said, the Question was in general terms; but a similar question might have been addressed to the right hon. Gentleman in former times as to whether, in regard to the solving of the housing problem, he and his party were not equally falsified by their performance.

Mr. Attlee: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, although it is quite true that the Question was a general one, the answer was particular?

Mr. Grimond: I welcome the Prime Minster's statement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—in so far as it may lead to the removal of some of the obstacles to cheaper transport, but will he give an assurance that he will protect the public against monopolies, whether private or public? Secondly, is he in a position to make any statement as to the steps which he may intend to take to give greater control to consumers and to Parliament over those industries which will remain nationalised?

Captain Robert Ryder: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, in regard to the supplementary question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, that in the Provinces, where there is competition, the cost of transport is considerably cheaper than it is in the London area?

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind when investigating these matters that there is a very large body of opinion in the country which believes that there was a considerable amount of sabotage in the nationalised industries by people who desired to bring them into disrepute in the country?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that there is any foundation for such an assumption. We, on the other hand, encountered a lot of difficulties in clearing up the mess which was made in regard to these industries. In reply to the first part of the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), it seems to me that, in regard to transport, the great thing is to meet the needs of the consuming public, while at the same time safeguarding the conditions of employment of the railwaymen.

Mr. James Griffiths: May I ask the Prime Minister to read the last sentence of his reply again, as I gathered from that that the Government are convinced that the nationalisation of the coal mining industry has been a blessing and a boon to the country?

The Prime Minister: I have always thought that the men who do this hard manual work, with danger, and far from the light of the sun, should have special consideration, and I used these very words long before many of the hon. Gentlemen opposite were born, when introducing the miners' eight-hour day Bill.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: This is becoming too large a question for discussion now.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Forces, Korea (Miners, Release)

Mr. George Sylvester: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence whether, in view of the

increasing need for more miners, he will consider releasing from Her Majesty's Forces all miners with underground experience who were serving in Korea and the Far East last summer, and were not then allowed to apply for release, but are now repatriated.

Mr. T. Driberg: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence if he will cause it to be made known to all ranks in the three services that ex-miners who were serving in the Far East last year, and were therefore debarred from applying for release under the general scheme in order to return to the mining industry, may now apply for such release as individuals.

Mr. Birch: As I informed the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) last Wednesday, there is no question of reopening the general scheme.
Steps are, however, being taken by the Service Departments to bring to the notice of all ranks that ex-miners who were debarred from applying for release from the Forces to return to the mines under last year's scheme because they were then serving in the Korean theatre may apply for release for this purpose on completion of their service in Korea.

Mr. Sylvester: Will the Minister make this generally known to these men because an injury was done to them in that they were serving their country and could not take advantage of the scheme; and, secondly, in view of the fact that his right hon. Friend, about a fortnight ago, said that there were nearly 12,000 vacancies in the mining industry, would not these men be of assistance to the mining industry, because they could go into productive work with very little training and at less cost than it takes to train trainees?

Mr. Birch: With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, the orders will go down in the ordinary way, and that has been arranged. The second part of the question involves re-opening the whole scheme, and that, as I have several times said, we are not prepared to do. We are not changing the policy of the last Government, and I think that it would be unreasonable to open the whole matter again.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Will the orders go down to these men in such a way that they understand that the Government


realise that they should come back to the coal mines because they can render better service there than in the Forces?

Mr. Driberg: Will the hon. Gentleman do his best to make sure that this information reaches all ranks, as very often there are deficiencies in information which filters through company orders and so on, as he well knows?

Mr. Birch: It will be done in the way that all these things are done. It will go through Army Council Instructions and so forth.

Imperial Defence College (Outside Lecturers)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence how many outside lecturers have been invited to speak at the Imperial Staff College in the past six months; and what were the subjects on which they spoke.

Mr. Birch: Thirty-seven outside lecturers addressed the students at the Imperial Defence College during the six months ending 31st March, 1952.
Apart from those of a military nature, the talks covered the main aspects of national and international affairs.

Mr. Hamilton: Is it not a fact that Mr. Arthur Horner addressed the Imperial Staff College on Communism? While I appreciate the desirability of fostering friendly relations between officials in the various nationalised industries, can the Minister indicate the consistency in a policy which sends a man to instruct Army officers on Communism and which denies Mr. Edgar Young the use of naval uniform for propagating Communism?

Mr. Birch: One of the subjects studied at the Imperial Defence College is very naturally Communism and the cold war, and I imagine that it was thought, when this gentleman was asked to lecture there, it might be valuable to hear something, as it were, from the horse's mouth. This, in fact, is one of the obligations for which we are indebted to the late Government, because Mr. Horner has lectured there several times before.

Mr. Hamilton: Would the Minister invite Mr. Edgar Young to give a talk to the Navy?

Lord John Hope: Did Mr. Horner get paid for his services and, if so, how much?

Mr. Birch: Mr. Homer has been paid for his services, but it is not the usual custom to disclose the amount paid to individual lecturers.

Training Grounds

Sir William Darling: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence how much land is retained for training purposes by the three Service Departments in England, Wales and Scotland, respectively.

Mr. Birch: The following acreages of land are held for training purposes in England, Wales and Scotland respectively, either on freehold or on leasehold or requisitioned under Defence Regulation 51:


England
357,450


Wales
48,150


Scotland
35,900


In addition, the Service Departments have training rights under Defence Regulation 52 over the following areas:


England
85,900


Wales
11,000


Scotland
23,000

Mr. Beswick: Does that include aerodromes?

Mr. Birch: No.

Mr. P. W. Donner: Can my hon. Friend say what proportion is requisitioned?

Mr. Birch: Not without notice.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me why the ratio of retained land in Wales is so much higher than in either England or Scotland? Does he appreciate that there is great discontent in Wales because of the allocation of so much land for these and other Government purposes?

Mr. Birch: The hon. Gentleman will realise that it is very important not to take really good agricultural land for these purposes, and that is one reason why mountain regions tend to be used. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Welsh Affairs has intervened in this matter and that the claims of Wales have been met to a very considerable extent.

Commonwealth Forces (Transfer of British Personnel)

Mr. Ian Harvey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence whether he will consider adjusting the present Regulations so that it is made easier for members of Her Majesty's British Forces wishing to transfer to the Forces of the Commonwealth to do so.

Mr. Birch: Applications from serving personnel of the British Forces to join Commonwealth Forces are considered on their merits. It must be borne in mind that we are doing our best at present to encourage men and women to stay in the United Kingdom Forces. The Commonwealth Governments have, however, been assisted on a number of occasions in recent years to recruit British ex-Servicemen into their Armed Forces.

Mr. Harvey: Will my hon. Friend agree that it is particularly desirable that there should be interchangeability between these arms, and as these Forces are serving together in many theatres, could he see his way to remove the restrictions altogether?

Mr. Birch: There are frequent exchanges of personnel. This is rather a different question, that of recruiting into the Commonwealth Forces. My hon. Friend will realise that we have the interests of our own Forces to keep in mind.

Mr. Erroll: Is my hon. Friend arranging for corresponding recruiting campaigns in Commonwealth countries to recruit men to the United Kingdom Forces?

Mr. Birch: No actual recruiting campaigns are going on, but we give assistance to ex-Regulars. I do not think that any general Commonwealth plan would be of very great value in this matter.

Mr. Driberg: When the frequent exchanges of personnel, about which the hon. Gentleman speaks, take place, what happens about the widely differing scales of pay between the different Commonwealth Forces?

Mr. Birch: I cannot say without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF FOOD

Tea Ration (Increase)

Mr. Coldrick: asked the Minister of Food if, in view of the representations made by the tea trade to increase the tea ration from 2 ounces to 2½ ounces, he will now increase the ration.

Mr. John Arbuthnot: asked the Minister of Food whether he is yet in a position to make a further statement about the de-control and de-rationing of tea.

The Minister of Food (Major Lloyd George): The withdrawal of the subsidy on tea announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take effect from 15th June.
The trade has undertaken that blends of sound quality tea will be on sale at 3s. 8d. a lb. in sufficient quantities to meet any foreseeable demand. This is the same as the present average price and only 4d. more than the present low priced tea. This means that although the subsidy is withdrawn the existing weekly ration of low priced tea will cost only ½d. more.
Also, in view of the improvement in supplies the tea ration will be increased from 2 oz. to 2½ oz. a week from 10th August.
This is a first step towards the complete de-control and de-rationing of tea, which I hope will be possible by the end of the year.

Mr. Coldrick: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether that decision has been taken at the request of the tea trade and not in accordance with the general interests of the community?

Major Lloyd George: That is a most extraordinary question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer it."] I will give the answer, as I always do. I take full responsibility—of course I do. This was in the national interest and was not done for any one section.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend's encouraging reply mean that, in the case of the cheaper grades of tea, only 'half the present 8d. subsidy which is being removed will be passed on to the consumer, and that the trade will bear the rest?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir. That is so.

Mr. Frederick Willey: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that the housewives appreciate that cheap tea is always the most expensive in the end and that this is a trick which will not deceive them? Will he also read today's "Financial Times," which confirms everything I said last Monday, that this ration ought to have been increased weeks ago?

Major Lloyd George: If the hon. Gentleman will do me the honour of looking through the figures for the time when he was at the Ministry, he will see that this might have been done about two years ago.

Mr. Peter Remnant: Has my right hon. and gallant Friend received any assurance from the exporting countries that they will not increase their export duties, and does his announcement mean that London will be permitted to re-export teas on the London market?

Major Lloyd George: I should be very glad if my hon. Friend would put that question down.

Mr. Richard Adams: How long does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman expect to take in replacing the present rationing system for all foods by this new price rationing system?

Mr. F. Willey: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory replies by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, I beg to give notice that I shall take further steps to raise this matter at the earliest opportunity to explain to the House the full facts of the case.

Price Increases

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Food if he can now give the food items with increases affected by the Budget.

Major Lloyd George: I cannot add to the reply which my hon. Friend gave to the hon. Lady on this subject on 24th March.

Mrs. Mann: One commodity at least was mentioned in the announcement made earlier by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. Can he say whether the ½d. per week extra which he has announced is arrived at by comparing the highest prices with the lowest? If the highest price is 4s. 8d., and the lowest 3s. 8d., how does he arrive at a ½d. per week extra?

Major Lloyd George: The average price is 3s. 8d., as I said in my answer to the last Question, and, as I pointed out, the actual increase on the lower-priced teas will be ½d. per weekly ration.

Mrs. Mann: Is that on 2 oz.?

Major Lloyd George: On 2 oz.

Mr. Beswick: What will be the increase on the better grades of tea?

Major Lloyd George: One can, of course, buy teas at very high prices. What will be happening is that those who are paying the higher prices for tea will be subsidising those who are paying the lower prices.

Cheese

Mr. F. Willey: asked the Minister of Food what is the estimated amount of cheese which is expected to arrive from New Zealand during 1952.

Major Lloyd George: The present estimate is 80,000 tons. But, as the hon. Member is aware, no very precise figure can be given so early in the year.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this is a serious reduction on last year's figures?

Major Lloyd George: Certainly, Sir. That is one of the troubles we are up against. The dollar trouble has something to do with it; if it had been handled better we should not now have been in all this difficulty. The other trouble is the shortfall from New Zealand.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say what he expects the total supplies from all sources to be this year compared with last year?

Major Lloyd George: I think there will be a drop of about 30 per cent.

Mr. Mellish: Surely the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will admit that his own party said that there was plenty of food in the world and that all they had to do was to let the private buyers go and buy it? Why does he not do that?

Major Lloyd George: That is perfectly true, but it must be recollected that we have to get the money with which to do it, and it will take more than the time that we have had to make up for what has happened in the last six years.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Government's inability to buy New Zealand cheese when available may eventually affect our market there?

Major Lloyd George: That really is not so. The amount available in New Zealand is less than it was last year.

Meat Ration

Mr. F. Willey: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the improvement in supplies and the prospect of further supplies, he will now restore the meat ration to 1s. 5d.

Major Lloyd George: Not at the moment.

Mr. Willey: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman pay some attention to the views of the meat trade, who believe that it is quite possible and proper to raise the meat ration now?

Major Lloyd George: I must also pay attention to the figures which I know, and therefore I am acting on the information which I have, upon which I prefer to act.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. C. R. Attlee: Might I ask the Leader of the House if he will state the business for the week of resumption after the Easter Recess?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. Assuming that the House agrees to the Motion to adjourn tomorrow until Monday, 21st April, for the Easter Recess, the business for the week of our return will be as follows:
MONDAY, 21ST APRIL — Second Reading:
Empire Settlement Bill.
Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution, which it is hoped to obtain by about 7 p.m.
Committee and remaining stages:
Customs and Excise Bill (this is largely a consolidation Measure which has been reported upon by a Joint Committee of both Houses).
New Towns Bill.
Consideration of Motion to commit the Rating and Valuation (Scotland) Bill to the Scottish Standing Committee.
Report and Third Reading:
Electricity Supply (Meters) Bill, if there is time.
TUESDAY, 22ND APRIL—Conclusion of Committee stage:
National Health Service Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 23RD APRIL—Second Reading:
Housing Bill.
Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
THURSDAY, 24TH APRIL—Supply [10th allotted Day]:—Committee.
Subject for debate to be announced later.
FRIDAY, 25TH APRIL—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.
During the week it is hoped to take the Motion to approve the MacBrayne Mail Contract, and consider any Amendments which may be received from another place to the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill.

Mr. Attlee: Arising from the business fixed for Tuesday, 22nd April, when the Government hope to get the conclusion of the Committee stage of the National Health Service Bill, can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about how far he expects to go on that matter today?

Mr. Crookshank: I think it is premature to say. It remains to be seen.

Mr. Attlee: Is it not a little premature to be so optimistic about Tuesday, 22nd April?

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: My right hon. Friend has intimated that he hopes to get the Second Reading of the Empire Settlement Bill and the Committee stage of the Money Resolution by seven o'clock on Monday, 21st April. Do we understand from that that if there are hon. Members on both sides of the House who wish to speak—and there is a considerable number—no action will be taken by the Government to terminate the discussion at seven o'clock?

Mr. Crookshank: I only said it was hoped that that time-table would suit the


convenience of Members. Hon. Gentlemen must not confuse the number of Members who want to speak with the length of the speeches they want to make.

Mr. Frederick Lee: Could the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government will give time to discuss the very important Motion put down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) and supported by Members on all sides of the House?

[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government immediately to reconsider their proposals with regard to Purchase Tax in order to alleviate the rising unemployment in the textile industry.]

Mr. Crookshank: I have noted that Motion.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Nally.

Mr. T. Driberg: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I should like to seek your guidance on a matter. There are three Notices of Motion to be moved by the Prime Minister, and I should like to seek your advice as to whether the second of those Motions, which has to do with the adjournment of the House tomorrow, is debatable or not?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, it is.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: Can the Leader of the House say when we can expect that the Government's White Paper on the future of the British Broadcasting Corporation will be available? I know there was a Question about it this afternoon, but I gathered then that the answer was that it was still uncertain.

Mr. Crookshank: It certainly has not changed since the answer was given to the Question.

Mr. A. Woodburn: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, after the Recess, a Motion will be moved to remit the Scottish counterpart of the Housing Bill to the Scottish Standing Committee?

Mr. Crookshank: I shall have to look into that with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. W. Nally: I have every regard for the Front Benches on both sides of the House, but I quite clearly understood that a little while ago you, Mr. Speaker, distinctly called out my name and that a

point of order was then quite properly taken, as it has precedence. With great respect, why is it when someone on one of the Front Benches gets up after the point of order has been dealt with, he gets a precedence over me and I am not called again?

Mr. Speaker: I think that is right, but the sequence of events was broken by an irruption from the Front Bench.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: Referring to the business on Monday, 21st April, when we return, may I reinforce the plea which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt) about the importance of the debate on the Empire Settlement Bill? Would my right hon. Friend give us a full day in which to debate this subject, not because of the number who may want to speak, but because of the importance of the subject.

Mr. Crookshank: I quite appreciate that, and my hon. Friends need be under no misapprehension about it. I merely put it down as a first Order on the Paper. Some of the other items are purely technical and formal, I hope.

Mr. Nally: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that discussions are now going on at the Ministry of Agriculture about the farm Price Review, and it is understood that this morning a figure of about £50 million was being discussed, which will be borne by the consumers. Sometime next week an announcement is to be made as to the exact figure. In view of the sum involved, its serious implications on the cost of living, and so that we can discuss more fully this £50 million—which comes on top of the doctors' £40 million—will the right hon. Gentleman make a day available for the subject?

Mr. Crookshank: All this seems very hypothetical, and I cannot fit in hypothetical questions with the programme for the week when we meet again after the Easter Recess.

Mr. H. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that under the previous Government it was arranged that there would be three days available in Government time for the discussion of matters affecting the public corporations, apart from whatever time the Opposition might find in Supply time. Can the right hon.


Gentleman say approximately when he will be ready to discuss the allocation of these three days, which, I presume, this Government will adhere to, as we did?

Mr. Crookshank: I cannot state any day yet.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: Would it ease the position for the right hon. Gentleman and those hon. Members who wish to have a full day for the Empire Settlement Bill if I were to say that I and my hon. Friends who are interested in the Customs and Excise Bill are prepared, in those circumstances, to allow the Committee stage to go through without putting down any Amendments or taking up any points? Will that be of assistance to the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Crookshank: Like the other matters that have been raised, I shall cobsider that carefully, but I recognise the generous action of one of the newer leaders of the Opposition.

Mr. John Baird: On a point order. I have been on my feet repeatedly and have not been called, Sir, I want to put a rather important point of business of a non-party nature.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but so did many other hon. Members.

DISABILITY AND WAR WIDOWS' PENSIONS (INCREASE)

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): I should like, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the leave of the House, to make a statement about disability and war widows' pensions.
The Chancellor announced in his Budget speech an increase from 45s. to 55s. a week in the standard basic rate of disability pension for 100 per cent. disablement, with proportionate increases for lower assessments. This improvement will take effect from the first pay-day in May and will apply to about 695,000 pensioners. He also said that there would be some increases for war widows and that I would make an announcement in due course.
I am glad to say that with effect from the first pay-day in May the standard rate of 35s. payable to a widow who is

over 40 or receiving an allowance for a child or who is incapable of self-support will be increased to 42s. The amount of the increase for comparable widows of officers will be £18 a year. The new rates benefit about 150,000 widows of both world wars. Application will not be necessary.
The revision of both disablement and widows' pensions is now proceeding and I hope that all pensioners affected will have received their increased awards by about the end of July, with arrears from the first pay-day in May. The cost of these improvements will be about £10 million a year.
I also take this opportunity of announcing that it has been decided to increase from £52 10s. to £57 a year the allowance towards maintenance and running expenses paid to those severely disabled war pensioners to whom my Department has supplied motor cars. The increased allowance will take effect from the 12th of March, 1952, and application will not be necessary.

Mr. George Isaacs: I am sure the Minister will be aware that the whole House welcomes the statement he has made, especially that part relating to widows' pensions. In particular we shall all welcome his decision to make the payments from the first pay day in May and we wish to commend him upon that prompt action.

Mr. Amory: I appreciate that very much, particularly coming from the right hon. Gentleman who, when Minister of Pensions, took such an interest in the well-being of the disabled.

Mr. Stephen McAdden: With reference to that part of the statement dealing with disability pensions, has the attention of the Minister been drawn to the front page of the "British Legion Journal" for April, which purports to show that a 100 per cent. disabled man received formerly 45s. and now can receive only 55s.? Is that a correct statement of the case either before or since his answer, and if not, will he correct it?

Mr. Amory: Yes, Sir, my attention has been called to this picture and I am surprised that the headquarters of the British Legion should have thought fit to approve of this picture and caption, because I believe it to be a complete


misrepresentation. The clear implication of that picture was that the unfortunate amputee concerned received only 55s. with the improvement I have just announced, and that was all. In fact, the very least he could get if he were a single man and able to work would be £4 8s., if he were unable to work, £6 3s., and if he were a married man, he would get more. If he were a married man with children and in need of constant attendance, he could get a sum which might go up to as much as £9 1s. 6d., including the new family allowance. I cannot think that the Legion authorities are best serving the cause of the disabled by propaganda of this kind.

Mr. James Simmons: Is the Minister aware that we are very pleased that he has continued the policy of increasing the car allowance, but that as the car allowance has now been increased by £12 over a period of years and the motor-propelled tricycle has no petrol allowance at all, would he kindly consider whether some little recognition should not be given to the difficulties of those using motor-propelled tricycles?

Mr. Amory: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a separate question. In the case of the motor tricycles, the Departments concerned, the Ministry of Health and my own Department, are responsible for the whole cost of maintenance, and the petrol consumption is a good deal lower than that of cars.

Sir Ian Fraser: While thanking my hon. Friend for having answered some of the questions which I ventured to put to him just after the Budget, may I ask him whether the Ministers concerned propose to receive a deputation from the British Legion, who desire to put before them the inadequacy of the rise which has recently been made in the basic rate so far as the overwhelming majority of war pensioners are concerned?

Mr. Amory: As I have told my hon. Friend before, I am always glad and prepared to receive a deputation from the British Legion. As regards the alleged inadequacy of the present increase, I

think the House will agree that the cost of living has risen substantially over the past six years and, personally, I am very pleased that the Government have found it possible at a moment of unprecedented financial difficulty, and in their first Budget, to make a useful contribution to the increased cost of living.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell: I understood the Minister to say that the increased pensions related to widows over 40 years of age. Is there anything for the widow under 40 years of age?

Mr. Amory: The widow under 40 who is in receipt of an allowance for children or is incapacitated will qualify for the rate I have mentioned. The widow under 40 who is not incapacitated and has no children will continue to receive the pension of 20s. a week. It has not been found possible under present circumstances to increase that.

Sir I. Fraser: May I ask my hon. Friend to give me a specific reply to my question? Will the Ministers receive this deputation before the Finance Bill goes through its final stages?

Mr. Amory: I am not prepared to say today on what date it will be possible to receive a deputation from the British Legion. Indeed, I think I am right in saying that I have not yet been approached on that subject. However, I say again what I have said before, that I am prepared to receive a deputation from the British Legion.

Mr. Leslie Hale: In making this review, has the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity of considering the basis of need test for parents' pensions, which now seems to be a case of hardship? If not, will he take an opportunity of making a review of this matter which I know was commenced by my right hon. Friend the former Minister of Pensions shortly before the Election?

Mr. Amory: I know the hon. Gentleman is interested in that matter and we have been in correspondence about it. It is not covered by what I have said today, but I have it always under consideration, and I am looking forward to discussing it with the hon. Gentleman.

ATTACHE CASES (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)

Sir Richard Acland: On a point of order. I am reluctant to trespass on the time of the House, Mr. Speaker, but I would ask you to give us a firm Ruling on the question of attaché cases which, as the result of the proceedings last night, has been left in a state of great uncertainty, particularly when the proceedings of last night are contrasted with what happened just under five years ago, when a somewhat similar incident was drawn to the attention of the then occupant of the Chair. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) will appreciate that I raise this point with no personal animosity against him. Indeed, there are very few hon. or right hon. Members on the other side for whom I have a greater regard. But it will be found—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a point of order and I am asked to give a Ruling. I cannot possibly do so unless I can hear the point.

Sir R. Acland: It will be found in column 2582 of today's HANSARD that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, in concluding the matter, used these words:
May I say … that … I did not leave the Chamber with the attaché case for any reason except to accelerate the progress of the debate and to ensure that the frivolous and ridiculous interruptions should be brought to an end. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th April, 1952; Vol. 498, c. 2582.]
That decision, made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, was allowed to stand. It clearly carries with it the implication that if he, or any other Member, had not been concerned to accelerate progress, the case could have remained in the Chamber, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman with it.
This contrasts with what took place on 9th July, 1947, when the Official Reporters recorded, in the middle of a speech by the first Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), that there was an interruption; whereupon my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle), who had, apparently, brought in a case, rose and asked, on a point of order, whether there

was anything wrong in his doing so. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Crookshank) then said:
We do not know what is inside it.
and hon. Members—HANSARD does not say from which side of the House; perhaps, from all sides—said:
Take it away."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1947; Vol. 439, c. 2218.]
Major Milner, as he then was, gave a direction that although Ministers were entitled to bring in despatch boxes to assist them, if necessary, with their speeches, other hon. Members were not entitled to bring in any sort of cases at all. Although my hon. Friend who now sits for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), pressed Major Milner about this question of inequality between right hon. and hon. Members, the Chairman adhered to his Ruling and insisted that cases of any kind should not be brought in and that, if brought in, should be taken away. I feel, therefore, that we might have the matter cleared up; otherwise, it is the thin end of the wedge. We might have these benches looking like a railway left luggage office.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Baronet was kind enough to tell me that he would raise this point of order. I have considered the matter. There is nothing to be found in writing on this subject. It is all governed by the ancient usage of the House, and according to that usage there are certain articles which it is out of order for hon. Members to bring into the Chamber. They are, quite briefly, these:
Weapons. This prohibition does not apply to Court officials and to hon. Members who happen to be moving or seconding the Address in Court dress.
Decorations. These should be removed before entering the Chamber, except in the same two cases.
Sticks and umbrellas. These are not permitted unless the hon. Member concerned has a disability which makes their use reasonable and proper.
Despatch cases. These should not be brought into the Chamber.
An hon. Member is quite in order in bringing into the Chamber any books or papers which he may require to consult or to refer to in the course of debate; but with the exception of Ministers, whose


despatch cases and official wallets are under a special dispensation, despatch cases should not be brought in.
I hope the House will agree with me that the Messengers who, under the direction of the Serjeant at Arms, remind hon. Members if they should unwittingly be transgressing these old customs, perform their duty with the utmost courtesy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—because it is easy for an hon. Member to forget these rules. I hope that this Ruling is firm enough for the hon. Baronet.

Mr. Frank Bowles: Further to that Ruling, Mr. Speaker, may I ask this question? There has grown up recently in the House a tendency for hon. Members to produce exhibits, such as a fish or other things of that kind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Eggs."] Yes, eggs. I cannot remember all the things; I did not know this was to be raised this afternoon.
I should be glad, Sir, if you would give an indication that that also is rather unbecoming to the dignity of the House. I remember that on one occasion there was a suggestion that the Postmaster-General should produce the little gadget that was designed to be put on motorcars to stop interference with television, which was deplored. I think the House would agree if you would say that no exhibits of any kind, whether eggs, hats or pieces of clothing and the rest, or even red meat, should be allowed.

Mr. Speaker: I agree that there are possibilities of mischief in introducing into the House exhibits such as eggs and other things, but there is a very old precedent going back to the time of Mr. Burke for the introduction of exhibits into the House. I had the pleasure of listening quite recently to an hon. Member who illustrated an Adjournment debate on clothes with a very interesting display of textiles. I should prefer to leave that to the good judgment of hon. Members.
If it is really necessary for an hon. Member to produce an exhibit to illustrate his argument, I see no reason why I should prohibit it in advance. I hope, however, that hon. Members will respect the spirit of our usages, which is that our Chamber should not be encumbered with matter from outside that is not relevant to the discussion.

Brigadier Christopher Peto: Further to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. Is there any limit to the size of bags which hon. Ladies may bring into the House?

Mr. Speaker: The rule against despatch cases dates from a period before we had the advantage of hon. Ladies as Members of the House. I understand that the handbag in a lady's equipment fulfils the office of pockets in male garments, and I further understand that ladies' garments are not usually provided with pockets. I think, therefore, that it would be unreasonable to prohibit ladies from carrying handbags in the House. As to their size, I should prefer to leave that matter also to the good sense of the hon. Ladies who are Members of the House.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Can we also have an assurance that it is in order for hon. Members to bring coins of the Realm into the Chamber, but not to throw pennies at Ministers and ex-Ministers?

Major H. Legge-Bourke: Further to that observation, may I ask you, Sir, whether your Ruling applies to bags from which cats might otherwise be let out?

DIVISION LISTS (PUBLICATION)

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: May I briefly raise a matter and ask your assistance, Mr. Speaker? It concerns the Division Lists published as an appendix to the Votes and Proceedings. Early this morning, in Committee, we divided on an Amendment concerning sums to be paid by aliens for surgical appliances. In Votes and Proceedings it is recorded that 22 hon. Members voted for the Amendment—incidentally, against the advice of the Leader of the House. These names are not given in Votes, but usually they are given in the appendix to the Votes. Today, the names of those 22 hon. Members are not in the appendix, presumably because the list went to the printers too late.
Hon. Members are in the difficulty that it is impossible to find out who were those 22 Members. I am told that the only list of names is now at the printers. I ask you to consider, Mr. Speaker, making arrangements so that, in future, hon. Members can find out from the Table the names of hon. Members voting in late Divisions. It is rather more than an


academic point, because there are many hon. Members who want today to know whether there is any truth in the rumour, which deeply distresses us, that one Member of the Government was among the 22 rebels.

Mr. Speaker: I should be very glad to consider that matter. The House will, I think, agree that, when we have these very late Sittings, it is very much to the credit of the printers that they can produce the Votes and Proceedings even in the form in which they are put before the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The Division Lists, of course, take much longer to print, especially when there is a large number of them. All I should like to say is that I will consider the point which the hon. Gentleman has

raised and see whether I can do anything about it.

Mr. T. Driberg: Further to that point of order. Would it be possible to consider putting a duplicate or copy of the Division List in question in the Library with the typescript of the report of late Sittings which is already available there?

Mr. Speaker: I will consider that also.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the National Health Service Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided. Ayes, 285; Noes, 255.

Division No. 78.]
AYES
[4.0 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hay, John


Alpert, C. J. M.
Cranborne, Viscount
Heald, Sir Lionel


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Heath, Edward


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Anstruther Gray, Maj. W. J.
Crouch, R. F.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Arbuthnot, John
Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwoed)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Cuthbert, W. N.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hirst, Geoffrey


Baker, P. A. D.
Davidson, Viscountess
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Deedes, W. F.
Hollis, M. C.


Baldwin, A. E.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)


Banks, Col. C.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hope, Lord John


Barber, A. P. L.
Donaldson, Comdr. C. E. McA.
Hopkinson, Henry


Baxter, A. B.
Donner, P. W.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Drewe, C.
Horobin, I. M.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir-T. (Richmond)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Duthie, W. S.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Erroll, F. J.
Hurd, A. R.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Fell, A.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Birch, Nigel
Finlay, Graeme
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Bishop, F. P.
Fisher, Nigel
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Black, C. W.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Bossom, A. C.
Fort, R.
Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)


Bowen, E. R.
Foster, John
Jennings, R.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Brains, B. R.
Gage, C. H.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollak)
Kaberry, D.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Keeling, Sir Edward


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Gammans, L. D.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Lambton, Viscount


Bullard, D. G.
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Godber, J. B.
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Bullus, Wing Cmdr. E. E.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Burden, F. F. A.
Gough, C. F. H.
Leather, E. H. C.


Butcher, H. W.
Gower, H. R.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Carson, Hon. E.
Grimond, J.
Linstead, H. N.


Cary, Sir Robert
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Llewellyn, D. T.


Channon, H.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Harden, J. R. E.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)


Clarke Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Low, A. R. W.


Cole, Norman
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Colegate, W. A.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Cooper, Sqn Ldr. Albert
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh




Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


McAdden, S. J.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


McCallum, Major D.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Storey, S.


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Pitman, I. J.
Studholme, H. G.


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Powell, J. Enoch
Summers, G. S.


Maclean, Fitzroy
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Sutcliffe, H.


MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Profumo, J. D.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Raikes, H. V.
Teeling, W.


Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Redmayne, M.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Markham, Maj. S. F.
Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Robertson, Sir David
Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Tilney, John


Maude, Angus
Robson-Brown, W.
Touche, G. C.


Maudling, R.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Turner, H. F. L.


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Roper, Sir Harold
Turton, R. H.


Medlicott, Brig. F.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Mellor, Sir John
Russell, R. S.
Vane, W. M. F.


Molson, A. H. E.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Vosper, D. F.


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Scott, R. Donald
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Nicholls, Harmer
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Watkinson, H. A.


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Shepherd, William
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Wellwood, W.


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Nugent, G. R. H.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Williams, Gerald (Tunbridge)


Nutting, Anthony
Snadden, W. McN.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Odey, G. W.
Soames, Capt. C.
Williams R. Dudley (Exeter)


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Spearman, A. C. M.
Wills, G.


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Speir, R. M.
Wison, Geoffrey (Truro)


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Wood, Hon. R.


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Spans, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
York, C.


Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard



Osborne, C.
Stevens, G. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Partridge, E.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Major Conant and Mr. Oakshott.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Clunie, J.
Glanville, James


Adams, Richard
Cocks, F. S.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Albu, A H.
Coldrick, W.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Collick, P. H.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Cook, T. F.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Cove, W. G.
Grey, C. F.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Awbery, S. S.
Crosland, C. A. R.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Crossman, R. H. S.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Baird, J.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Balfour, A.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)


Bence, C. R.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Hamilton, W. W.


Benn, Wedgwood
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hannan, W.


Benson, G.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hardy, E. A.


Beswick, F.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hargreaves, A.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Deer, G.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)


Bing, G. H. C.
Donnelly, D. L.
Hastings, S.


Blackburn, F.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hayman, F. H.


Blenkinsop, A.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)


Blyton, W. R.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)


Boardman, H.
Edelman, M.
Herbison, Miss M.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Bowden, H. W.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hobson, C. R.


Bowles, F. G.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Holman, P.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Houghton, Douglas


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Hoy, J. H.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Ewart, R.
Hubbard, T. F.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Fernyhough, E.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Field, Capt. W. J.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Burke, W. A.
Fienburgh, W.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Finch, H. J.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Butler Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Callaghan, L. J.
Follick, M.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Carmichael, J.
Foot, M. M.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Forman, J. C.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Champion, A. J.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Janner, B.


Chapman, W. D.
Freeman, Peter (Newprt)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Jager, George (Goole)







Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Oldfield, W. H.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Oliver, G. H.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Orbach, M.
Swingler, S. T.


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Oswald, T.
Sylvester, G. O.


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Padley, W. E.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Paget, R. T.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Keenan, W.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pannell, Charles
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


King, Dr. H. M.
Pargiter, G. A.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Paton, J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Pearson, A.
Thurtle, Ernest


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Peart, T. F.
Timmons, J.


Lewis, Arthur
Porter, G.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Lindgren, G. S.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Tomney, F.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Logan, D. G.
Proctor, W. T.
Viant, S. P.


MacColl, J. E.
Pryde, D. J.
Wallace, H. W.


McGhee, H. G.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Watkins, T. E.


McInnes, J.
Rankin, John
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Reeves, J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


McLeavy, F.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Wells, William (Walsall)


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Reid, William (Camlachie)
West, D. G.


McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Rhodes, H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Richards, R.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Wigg, G. E. C.


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A B.


Manuel, A. C.
Ross, William
Wilkins, W. A.


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Royle, C.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Mayhew, C. P.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Mellish, R. J.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Williams, David (Neath)


Messer, F.
Short, E. W.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Mikardo, Ian
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Mitchison, G. R.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Monslow, W.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Moody, A. S.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Morley, R.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brighlside)


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Snow, J. W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Sorensen, R. W.
Wyatt, W. L.


Mort, D. L.
Sparks, J. A.
Yates, V. F.


Moyle, A.
Steele, T.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Mulley, F. W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)



Murray, J. D.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Nally, W.
Strachey, Rt Hon. J.
Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Holmes.


Question put, and agreed to.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House do meet Tomorrow at Eleven o'clock; that no Questions be taken after Twelve o'clock; and that at Five o'clock Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question.—[The Prime Minister.]

4.10 p.m.

Mr. T. Driberg: I am grateful for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, and I apologise for detaining the House for a moment or two. But I feel I ought to draw your attention, and the attention of the Leader of the House, to the fact that if we pass this Motion in its present form we may be depriving ourselves of what is very often one of the most valuable features of our proceedings.
The second part of this Motion says:
that no Questions be taken after Twelve o'clock.
It does not say that none of the Questions printed on the Order Paper be taken after twelve o'clock. It says absolutely no Questions. Therefore, I take it that if any hon. Member asks your permission to ask a Question by Private Notice tomorrow at the end of Question time he will be out of order in doing so.
Furthermore, should any Minister exercise his discretion and ask your permission to answer one of the Questions on the Order Paper which have not been reached, again he would be out of order in doing so. I suggest that, quite inadvertently, there has been a slip in the drafting of this Motion. I do not know whether it would be in order for the Leader of the House to offer, perhaps, a manuscript Amendment, or something of that kind, because otherwise I do not see how, at any rate, those hon. Members who may wish to ask Private Notice Questions tomorrow can do other than vote against the Motion.
I do not know how many there are, but as you will know, Sir, particularly when an Adjournment, or a period of Recess is approaching, there is, naturally enough, an increasing pressure of Private Notice Questions. It would be a very great pity if, by passing this Motion, we were to deprive ourselves of that opportunity, because I must repeat that this Motion is absolutely worded and does not allow any Question at all, even a Private Notice Question, after twelve o'clock.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) in this matter, because I recollect an incident which occurred just before the Adjournment at Christmas which might possibly be repeated if this Motion goes through unchallenged.
You, Mr. Speaker, will recollect that before the Christmas Recess many hon. Members on this side of the House tried for some weeks to get both the Minister of Education and the Prime Minister to say, in answer to Questions, whether or not it was the intention of the Government to cut the education services. Just before the Adjournment, on the Thursday as we were due to adjourn on the Friday, Questions were asked of both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Education, but no answer was given.
Within a matter of hours of the House adjourning for the Christmas Recess the Minister of Education made a statement of great importance which, we feel, should have been made to the House. This afternoon my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) asked about the possibility of farmers being given another £50 million. This is very important, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) will support me. If, between now and the Adjournment, the Minister of Agriculture reaches a settlement to give £40 million or £50 million to the farmers, and if this Motion goes through, then, as I understand, it will not be possible for the Minister to tell the House that he is going to give £40 million or £50 million to the farmers.
I believe that we should at least protect not only the rights of the House and the rights of hon. Members, but should protect Ministers and give them the opportunity of making statements such as this. I think you will agree, Sir, and hon. Members on both sides of the House, I am sure, will agree that it is far better to have a discussion on matters such as this and to have the facts given to the House, rather than that they should be given during the Adjournment period.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the House will take the opportunity to deal with the very vital point which my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon


has raised, and will give us an assurance that it will be possible for us to put Private Notice Questions, if they are accepted by you, Sir, as being in order, so that if we think there is a need for a Question to be put we will not be ruled out of order because we have passed this Motion.

Mr. Speaker: Two hon. Members have expressed apprehension that if we passed this Motion it would prevent the Chair from accepting Private Notice Questions or prevent Ministers making statements, if that were necessary. It would not have that effect. This is a variation in respect of Questions under Standing Order No. 8, paragraph (3), which says that as a general rule no Questions shall be taken after half-past three, except such Questions as Mr. Speaker may allow to be asked by Private Notice, and other matters of an urgent character. So I can reassure the hon. Members who have expressed fears on the matter that the acceptance of this Motion would not prevent me from accepting Private Notice Questions tomorrow or statements being made.

Mr. Driberg: I am grateful to you, Sir, for clarifying the matter, but should not it be clarified on the Order Paper? Naturally, I accept what you say, but it would have been perfectly simple for the Leader of the House or the Government Whips to have put down on the Order Paper a Motion which said that no Questions would be taken after twelve o'clock, except such Questions as you, Mr. Speaker, allow by Private Notice to Ministers.
May I ask the Leader of the House through you, Sir, whether, to make the matter more exact and more orderly, he will consider doing that on future occasions?

4.20 p.m.

Mr. George Chetwynd: May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Tomorrow I have a Question which is well down the Notice Paper and may not be reached. I consider it is of public importance as it deals with imports of steel from the United States. It may be necessary to ask the Minister of Supply to answer it after Questions, provided that you will allow it. What I wanted to ask you now was, whether that would be possible if we passed this Motion.

Mr. Speaker: If it were desired by the Minister to answer a Question on grounds of public importance, this Motion would not prevent that from being done.

Sir Robert Grimston: I think it will be in the recollection of many hon. Members on both sides of the House that this has been the form in which this Motion has been put on many occasions, and that it has never led to any difficulty at all.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: I should be much obliged to the Leader of the House if he would confirm what has just been submitted. My recollection is that in the days of the previous Government, and when my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was Leader of the House and when I was Leader of the House, this Motion was moved in this form. If that was so, then it seems to me a little difficult for us to press objection to it now, especially in view of what you, Mr. Speaker, have said.
I have some sympathy with what my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) has said about the actual wording of the Motion. It does appear to be somewhat categorical and rigid, but I cannot quarrel with it because I have an unholy memory that I moved it in exactly the same form myself, without any such results as these today.
In view of the Ruling which Mr. Speaker has given, it seems to me that my hon. Friend's point is really safeguarded for tomorrow, but if the Leader of the House would clear up the question whether this is the usual form, and would, perhaps, undertake to look at it to see if it requires—I am not trying to commit him at all—revision for future occasions I should think that we could then let it go, if the right hon. Gentleman will give us those assurances.

4.22 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): The right hon. Gentleman's memory may be holy or not. He called it unholy. However, it is quite clear in this case. This is the common form, and it was certainly used by the previous Administration. In view of that, and in view of Mr. Speaker's statement about the possibility of Private Notice


Questions and statements, there seems to be no point in continuing this discussion further.

Mr. Driberg: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider for future occasions—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—putting the intention in form on the Order Paper? What harm would it do to have on the Order Paper a Motion expressing exactly what the House wishes?

Mr. H. Morrison: I do not want to commit the right hon. Gentleman necessarily to alter the form, but I think there is a point in my hon. Friend's earlier request. If he would be good enough to look at the matter to see if it is satisfactory, and to satisfy himself about it, without committing himself as to the future, it would be useful and acceptable. Then we could get on.

Mr. Crookshank: I am prepared, without—as the right hon. Gentleman said—any commitments, to look at this matter, and I feel very gratified that right hon. Gentlemen opposite think that right hon. Gentlemen sitting here are more suitable for looking into these matters which, for six years, they never looked at at all.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. George Jeger: We are very grateful, Mr. Speaker, for your clarification of this difficulty, but I wonder if you would elaborate this a little in connection with an eventuality that may arise that a Minister may make a statement tomorrow at the conclusion of Question time, as the Minister of Pensions did today, to be followed by a number of questions put to him. Will it be in order, if a Minister makes a statement of some importance, for hon. Members to rise, as they did today, to put questions to him arising out of the statement he makes, though not Questions on the Order Paper or Private Notice Questions?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, but there is one consideration which, I hope, the House will bear in mind tomorrow. It is that if there is a statement, and if there is prolonged questioning following it, that will eat into the time of Private Members who, at great trouble to themselves, have put down matters for discussion on the Adjournment. I should feel it my duty in the Chair, were I here, and those questions were to arise, to try to limit to a reasonable amount any supplementary

questions. It would certainly be in order to ask supplementary questions.

Resolved,
That this House do meet Tomorrow at Eleven o'clock; that no Questions be taken after Twelve o'clock; and that at Five o'clock Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question.

ADJOURNMENT (EASTER)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Monday, 21st April.—[Mr. Crookshank.]

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Bing.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. Richard Adams: On a point of order. I would appreciate your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a similar difficulty in regard to this Motion. Some of my hon. Friends and I should like to ask how it is possible to make certain that this Motion refers to April, 1952, and not April, 1958. Permit me to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that until some few years ago it was customary to word this Motion so that the year could be identified; and that custom is still pursued in the Journal.
Though I do not suspect the Government of any evil intentions on this occasion, I should like to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that, if this Motion were passed in its present form, it would be quite possible, after the House has risen for this Easter Recess, for the Government to say that they intended it to be an Adjournment until April, 1958.
I do not know how they will overcome their difficulties in regard to the Finance Bill and the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, but I do submit to you seriously that, if we pass this Motion in this form without identifying the year, we shall commit ourselves into the hands of the Government, and that it will be up to them to choose when to bring the House back again.

Mr. Michael Stewart: Further to that point of order. May I respectfully, before you give your Ruling on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Adams), recall to you, Mr. Speaker, an episode earlier in the history of this


House which, I suggest, may be of some help to you in judging the validity of the point raised by my hon. Friend. I refer to the episode of Mr. John Wheble in the late 18th century. Mr. Wheble was a printer who printed what purported to be reports of the debates of this House. At that time the House took the view—as we should now consider, mistakenly—that such attempts to report its debates were a breach of Privilege.
An Order was, therefore, issued by the House to Mr. Wheble. The reason why I raise this matter is to show the importance this House has always attached to precision in the matter of dates. The Order issued to Mr. Wheble ran as follows:
Ordered, That John Wheble do attend this House on Tuesday next.
Mr. Wheble disobeyed the Order, and it was urged in his defence that the words "Tuesday next"—which, indeed, may be considered to be more precise than the words in this Motion—were not a clear instruction to him since the only date on the Order was contained in the words "die Jovis," which, I understand, mean Thursday, and it was argued on Mr. Wheble's behalf that it was expressed in a language which it was not obligatory on His Majesty's subjects to understand, and that, therefore, the words "Tuesday next" had no clear meaning, since there was no date after which Tuesday could be next.
Further to illustrate the great regard that this House has for precision, I would observe that it was further argued that, when the Order was issued from this House to somebody outside it containing the instruction that he should attend this House, the words "this House" were not sufficiently precise; for when Mr. Wheble received that Order, he was, of course at his own house, and that, most properly, he should have been considered as having obeyed the Order by staying at home.
I must confess that what happened to Mr. Wheble immediately after that is not clear, but at least it is certain that, in the long run, the House was not able to proceed in the way which it had intended against Mr. Wheble, and the principle with which it was concerned—the reporting of the debates of this House—was ultimately conceded. It is possible that the House on that occasion might have disciplined Mr. Wheble as, however ill-advisedly, it none the less intended to do.
We have to consider the fact of the intention of the House, and I would respectfully draw your attention to the fact that, very unwisely, the House on that occasion found itself in that difficulty because of the lack of precision in the way in which it expressed its views in official documents. I am sure that the Leader of the House would not wish to follow the example of the disastrous Administration which was conducting the affairs of this country at that period of the 18th century, when they attempted to discipline Mr. Wheble.
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman could help us by moving a manuscript Amendment either to put in the word "next" as an addition to "April 21st," or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central, suggests, the insertion of the date "1952," for it is not only 1958 which could be referred to here, but a period longer than that, by six, nine or 11 years respectively. It is my respectful hope that what I have said on this occasion may be of some help to you, Sir, in deciding the validity of the point raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Speaker: In reply to that point of order, I think the hon. Member who raised it answered it himself. The meetings of this House depend on far more powerful constitutional motives and safeguards than on the printing of "1952" on the Order Paper. This Motion is in common form, and, it being a Motion for the Adjournment for Easter, I think the intention is perfectly clear—that it means 21st April of this year. In giving that Ruling I do not feel at all embarrassed by the case of Mr. Wheble, because the facts do not appear to me to be on all fours at all, and there is, therefore, no necessity to amend this Motion.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Adams: May I respectfully draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that, as recently as the 1920s, the common form of this Motion was not the form which appears on the Order Paper today, but was more meticulous in its terms? When the Motion referred to an adjournment to a subsequent date in the same month, it referred to such-and-such a date instant of that month.
Last year, the Adjournment was moved on 1st August, and the terms used were, "That this House do adjourn until the 16th day of October next." In other


words, we have always made it perfectly clear until recently, and our intentions were perfectly clear until, on this occasion, through the incompetence of the Government, the old form of words has been altered. If we accept this as common form, some Government, worse in its intentions than the present one—though that is difficult to imagine—or a Government with more pronounced intentions, might put down a Motion for the Adjournment, and we might subsequently find after the House has adjourned that Members had not understood and were not aware what the Government had in mind; the House might even be adjourned to another year.
I have made some inquiries on the point, and I find that Monday, 21st April, does not refer only to Monday, 21st April of this year, but might refer to 1958 or a whole series of years after that. Therefore, I suggest that, as a further safeguard, we might ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Leader of the House to draw up a more meticulous form of words that more precisely indicate the intentions of the Government.

Mr. Anthony Marlowe: May I say a few words on this point? What matters, of course, is how these words are understood by the hon. Gentlemen to whom they are addressed. If it be the case that hon. Gentlemen who have professed no understanding of these words do not really understand them, and do not turn up on the appointed date, we shall really have to do our best to get along without them.

Mr. Adams: Further to that point of order. I suggest that the hon. and learned Member is completely wrong. All hon. Members here today hope that they understand the intention of the Motion on the Order Paper, but the danger lies, as we have pointed out, in assuming that the intention of the Government coincides with the words which we are asked to approve in such a Motion, and it may be that a situation could arise in which the Government might be saying that they interpreted the Motion differently from the way the House did when it passed it.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: I do not know if I can help you, Mr. Speaker, by seeking to add "1952" to the Motion but, leaving that matter aside, I suggest

that this matter raises very important questions of principle which this House should discuss before we break up for the Easter Recess. Two of my hon. Friends and myself have an Amendment on the Order Paper proposing that the reassembly of this House be postponed for only one day, and we have done that in all humility and out of a spirit of reasonableness, which I hope will be interpreted in just the same way as the spirit in which the Minister of Pensions made his announcement today. It is when we have a reasonable approach to a matter that we are likely to get down and study the matter properly.
We on this side of the House all appreciate that the demise of the Crown and difficulties of that sort made it necessary for the Government to take a shorter Easter Recess than it sometimes does, but, in fact, the Easter Recess has sometimes been for one week and sometimes two. We suggest that the House should return on the Tuesday, and we do it for this reason. Whenever the House has previously adjourned, either for one week or for two, it has always met again on a Tuesday, and therefore there is here a departure from principle, and we say that this House ought to be very careful how it departs from precedent. Precedents are of the utmost importance in Parliament, and, if we do not allow ourselves to be guided by precedents and Standing Orders, we should find ourselves in difficulties.
It is very proper that one should take this opportunity of making some inquiry on why this change has been made. Of course, the reason for the return of the House on a Tuesday is an obvious one; it is to enable hon. Members, who not only have duties here but in their constituencies, to get together with their constituents and learn their opinions. I can appreciate that the Minister of Health may feel that, under present circumstances, that is undesirable. If his hon. Friends would go among those who elected them, they would become completely demoralised. We are entitled to know if that is the object of this departure from precedent, but I rather suspect that, whatever the Minister of Health may think, he will not say that, but that we will be told that the reason why he is doing this is in order to get Government business through.
I think that is the point he would make, and it is rather like the criticism that some of us have been making on the Government's programme. If the situation is so bad, then this is far too little, because if the right hon. Gentleman intends to get his programme through we should not be meeting on Monday week, but on Bank Holiday Monday. If, on the other hand, it is the object of the right hon. Gentleman to abandon part of his programme, then obviously we should consider which part of the programme he is abandoning so that the House may be in a position of assessing whether we really need come back on the Monday or not.
Therefore, it is most important that we should take the opportunity of this historic occasion for looking at the whole matter. I say that this is a historic occasion because, of course, this was the original Motion which used to be moved on the last day of the Session, and it was moved in those days—as will be seen if one looks at the old Reports—just for this particular purpose. The difficulty was that the last day of the Session was one on which some Members did not always attend, and, unfortunately, on one occasion this Motion was talked out. Then a very unfortunate situation arose, unknown to most of the hon. Members who had gone home—the House had to reassemble on the next day pursuant to Standing Order.
Therefore, we have departed from this system of having this Motion which enables us to discuss future business and have instead the general Adjournment Motion on which, of course, such a discussion would not be relevant. But it is particularly relevant at the moment, in view of the Rulings of Mr. Speaker, which I think, if I may say so with all humility, we all appreciated and concurred in, that business questions should be addressed to the business of the coming week and not to hypothetical cases, as to whether the right hon. Gentleman is or is not going to put down all the Motions which some of his hon. Friends behind him are urging upon him.
There is a third reason why we should consider this question in some detail. When we adjourned for seven and a half weeks we had a short debate on that matter, and the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health recalled what was

said by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. He pointed out that my right hon. Friend had said on a previous occasion that this rather more lengthy Adjournment was necessary in order to allow Members to arrange their affairs, and the right hon. Gentleman said he thought a similar Adjournment was necessary in order, again, to allow Members to arrange their affairs.
When I come to discuss and deal with, as I hope shortly to do, the actual business, it will be seen that if the programme is to be completed the House will probably have to sit until 27th February next without rising again at all. Under those circumstances it will be reasonable, I think, to allow hon. Gentlemen opposite a clear week-end—not at the holiday period—in which to arrange their affairs. There are a number of hon. Members whose business and other things obviously make it necessary for them to make other arrangements, and the House ought not to decide to sit until 27th February unless, first of all, we have a look to see what—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I cannot see anything about 27th February in this Amendment.

Mr. Bing: May I put the point I am developing? It is relevant to see for how long this Adjournment is to be if we are entitled under those circumstances to discuss the length of the other periods at which we are going to start, because, obviously, if business is in such a position that we cannot possibly conclude it all without ever having any other period of Adjournment, then there is an advantage in making this one a little bit longer.

Mr. Deputy - Speaker: That goes beyond the Amendment. The Amendment is very simple; it is to leave out Monday, 21st, and to insert Tuesday, 22nd, and I think any argument going beyond that is out of order.

Mr. Leslie Hale: On a point of order. May I respectfully remind you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—

Mr. R. T. Paget: On a point of order. In my submission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, this is the one occasion on which within the Rules of Order we may discuss forthcoming business. We cannot do it on the business Motion


because there we are confined to the next week. In the old days the Motion for the Adjournment of the House was an ordinary Adjournment Motion. According to Erskine May it was Opposition time, and it provided the Opposition with the opportunity to discuss forthcoming business. Now, owing to the fact that that Motion was once talked out, the Motion to adjourn the House tomorrow has ceased to be Opposition time and has become Private Members' time. Therefore, it ceases to be available for discussing forthcoming business.
The Motion which is moved today—and I submit that this is according to Erskine May—is the one opportunity with which we are provided to discuss the Government's intention regarding the legislative programme and what they are going to introduce and the timetable. I very respectfully submit, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—and I am hoping later to catch your eye—that this is a very important question and that this is the one opportunity we have to discuss it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I should have thought that would have been more appropriate on the main Motion than on this Amendment, which is quite narrow.

Mr. Paget: With regard to that, I do not know if it would be for the convenience of the House if the matters were discussed together. Whether we adjourn tomorrow or the next day, or whether we adjourn on some other occasion, I should have thought the broad question of discussing what is the legislative programme was relevant on all those matters and that it might have been for everybody's convenience to discuss them together and thus save the time of the House.

Mr. Hale: Further to that point of order. May I venture respectfully to refresh your memory, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps I might be allowed to answer one thing at a time. On the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), I imagine that the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) is in the course of moving his Amendment. If he does not move it, he will have exhausted his right to speak again and will not be able to move it later on.

Mr. Hale: I rose to intervene in the course of the speech of my hon. nad learned Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing) and I said, I hope audibly, "On a point of order." You, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, called my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) who had not, in fact, at that stage announced his intention to rise on a point of order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot allow that to be said. The hon. and learned Member for Northamtpon did indicate a point of order, and I called him on that account. I hope the hon. Member will withdraw that remark. It is not true.

Mr. Hale: If you say that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, then, of course. I do withdraw it. But my impression is that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton said it only after I had used the words. The second point is a more important one. We had a debate on 6th December last on a Motion tabled by my right hon. Friends to vary the date of the Christmas Adjournment. On that occasion, Mr. Speaker was in the Chair. The terms of that Motion were to antedate the proposed date of the Adjournment by seven days, that is, to substitute 22nd January for 29th January, and, therefore, I apprehend that the same rules as applied to that particular Motion will apply to this one.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understood the hon. Member was raising a point of order. What he is saying is rather confusing, and if he put it more simply I might understand it.

Mr. Hale: I am trying to call your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to a precedent on this matter which happened only a few months ago and about which, I suggest, it would not be improper for me to refresh your memory. As recently as 6th December a similar Motion was moved and Mr. Speaker ruled that the discussion could be a wide one. My hon. Friend the Member for Malden (Mr. Driberg) spoke on Korea on this Motion and, furthermore, immediately before hearing a Motion on the Christmas Adjournment, my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) sought to move the Adjournment under Standing Order No. 9 on a matter of public importance.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think I follow the point of order quite clearly, but on that occasion I do not think there was an Amendment as narrowly drafted as this, which is to leave out Monday, 21st April, and insert Tuesday, 22nd April.

Mr. Hale: I am sure my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Horn-church has many things to say which would fall within even the narrowest of Rulings, and therefore may I respectfully refresh your memory, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on the Ruling, because I have the volume of the OFFICIAL REPORT before me? The Amendment then was to insert 22nd January instead of 29th January. That was what was being discussed, and a large number of hon. Members spoke and a great many matters were raised, which I suggest were general matters, under the principle stated in Erskine May that this is a Motion for the Adjournment of the House and it is an opportunity on which we can very specially review the progress of Government Business.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I can only repeat what I said before. The general Motion is for the Adjournment for Easter, but this Amendment which it is sought to move is very narrow.

Mr. Frank Bowles: On a point of order. The Amendment has not yet been moved and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch is speaking on the main Question. I submit that it is only when he moves the Amendment and it is seconded that this debate becomes narrow.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am quite aware of the position, but I pointed out to the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch that if he does not move his Amendment he will forfeit his right to move it.

Mr. Bing: I was giving way to hon. Friends who wish to raise points of order, and I was merely emphasising, by means of the Amendment I intend to move when I have finished the remarks I have to make on the Motion, that this departure from precedent crystallises the position we are in. No doubt at some stage we shall be able to obtain some reply as to why this period has been chosen at all.
If I may resume where I left off the argument when some of my hon. Friends

came to my assistance, we are now entering upon a period—and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health sufficiently appreciates the fact—which is governed by Rule and Standing Order No. 16 and the Gibson-Bowles Act. [Interruption.] No, not named after the present distinguished Parliamentarians bearing those names. In this period, which ends on 5th August, the average amount of time for legislation other than financial business has been until now 25 days. I do not know whether the Finance Bill will not take rather longer this time than is the average. I say that because I know that a great number of hon. Gentlemen opposite are anxious to raise questions on the Excess Profits Tax, the Purchase Tax and matters of that sort which may result in the Finance Bill debate going on rather longer.
Let us suppose that the financial business only goes on for the average period of 25 days. In that case there are standing on the Order Paper now 10 Bills which have not yet received a Second Reading. There are the Committee stages of one very contentious Measure, the Licensed Premises in New Towns Bill and another Measure that will take a day or so at any rate in Committee—the Post Office Bill. Naturally, this whole matter arises out of and is one of the difficulties which is inherent in the working of our democracy. If hon. Members opposite only poll a minority of the votes in the country, our democratic system works in such a way that they only have a small majority of the seats in this House. That being so, it is really quite impossible for them to put through legislation, and for them to attempt to do so would only run the House into all sorts of difficulties. There are two possible methods. The first is to have no Recess at all. I do not think we should attempt that because we should not achieve anything by it.
It is worth while looking at the actual figures of the possible time. I should like to quote to the House what is said by the two authorities to which hon. Members instinctively turn when they desire guidance on procedure. The first is Erskine May and the second the observations made from time to time by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. The 14th Chapter of Erskine May, the classic chapter which deals with the arrangement of Sessional Business,


ends with these words, which I think the whole House should consider before it assents to this Motion, because they really go to the root of our constitutional practice:
The conclusion which emerges from the facts, collected in this chapter from the whole range of procedure, is that, while a Government is placed by standing order in effective control of the time of the House, and while it can and sometimes does use its influence over the majority of the House to remove any and every impediment to the full exercise of this control, yet reasonably adequate safeguards exist for the rights of the minority and of private Members as individuals; for these rights are inextricably embedded in the procedure by which Ministers secure the passage of indispensible portions of national business, and no Government could go far in withholding these rights without bringing the machinery of Parliament to a standstill.
That is what we are facing—the possibility that by attempting to adjourn and give the usual holidays and yet force through contentious legislation we shall have the whole business of Parliament brought to a standstill. Before we lightly go away we should make quite certain that there will not be some constitutional crisis through the failure of hon. Gentlemen opposite to get through legislation that is absolutely necessary to the national interest.
There is another point to which I should like to allude in passing. One of the most unfortunate things that could possibly occur in this House would be some large dispute between the Chair or the Chairman of Committees and the House or the Committee as a whole. Without going into the question of merits such a conflict is bound to arise when a Government attempts to force its business through the House. It has been long the tradition of the House to appoint as Chairman of Committees, and Deputy-Chairman, a Member of the Government Party. That dates from the idea that the Chairman should be used to assist in getting Government business through.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I will not allow that to be said. I occupied that position when the party to which I do not belong was in power. I do Pot think it is fair to say that.

Mr. Bing: I was making no reflection on you whatsoever, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and with great respect if you had just waited until my next sentence you would

have seen that the impression, which perhaps I have erroneously created, was the exact opposite of what I was about to explain to the House.
That has been the old tradition and in those circumstances the occupants of the Chair, who have a very difficult task to do, are placed in the appallingly difficult position that at some time they have to exercise a judicial discretion when dealing with a Motion which is moved by the party which they support, because of the tradition of the House in alternating the Chairman of Ways and Means in accordance with party. That may be a reason for departing from the usual procedure, and I do not suggest that there has ever been anything that was not fair and proper with regard to the conduct of a Deputy-Speaker and yourself, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in dealing with the problems that arise. But it is one of the difficulties.
We do not want to bring our Parliamentary system into disrepute by allowing a situation to arise where this problem is always coming forward. There is no Member who, when he has not delivered a speech, and the Closure has been moved, does not feel in those circumstances that the Closure has been moved unfairly. Therefore, we want, if possible, to avoid a political situation where Government business can only be got by the continual movement of the Closure.
I suggest therefore, that the House ought to approach this problem and, subject to what the right hon. Gentleman says, it ought to have not only this Recess that he is proposing, but the rather longer one which is proposed in my Amendment which I hope to move later on. If we do that, it will involve an alteration in Government business, and we ought to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether he intends to alter Government business.
When this matter was being discussed on a previous occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health expressed his view of what should be the proper conduct of the House. I should like to read to the House what he then said, so that he can tell us whether he now considers that this is the right course for us to pursue. The right hon. Gentleman said:
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his colleagues propose to move when we are sure of the ground, to make the necessary preparations and not to take false


steps. They do not propose to rush into every kind of fantastic legislation, if that is the complaint. The post-war Parliaments have, I think we can all agree in retrospect, legislated ad nauseam, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford (Mr. Profumo) was right. We ought not really to give the old Mother of Parliament legislative indigestion.
That is exactly what is happening at the moment. Then the right hon. Gentleman added these pregnant words:
It is not necessary. We have got to digest the legislation we have already passed.
I congratulate hon. Members opposite on their digestive system.
Legislation, after all, is only one of the most important functions of Parliament. Careful administration and control of finance are equally important, and this House really should be, and is and has been in the past, the great forum of debate for the nation."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 13th November, 1951; Vol. 493, c. 940.]
If we are going to be the great forum of debate for the nation and we are going to pass all this legislation and digest it, we shall need every moment of time that we can secure.
Let us see whether, in fact, that is physically possible, because we on this side of the House have all been puzzled as to what are the right hon. Gentleman's plans. I think he can take it from me that the latest possible date for prorogation is 27th February, 1953, and it would be impossible under financial arrangements to carry Parliament on any further than that if the necessary votes were got before 31st March. In those circumstances, if we take after 5th August and we sit every day, according to my calculations we have got 143 sitting days in which to carry through legislation; that is after Supply is finished on 5th August.
But we must have some regard for another place. They, too, have to pass legislation and so, in fact, the number of effective sitting days which we possess are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 120. That would involve what some hon. Members may consider undesirable—not rising for Christmas before Christmas Day itself. That would mean sitting absolutely continuously. Supposing the right hon. Gentleman proposes to have a few days break at Christmas and a few days break in August, that will reduce his total number of days to somewhere around 110. If one looks at the average number of days which are taken in various other

matters one will see that about 10 to 15 of those days must go, so that he will have rather less than 100 days in which to get his business through.
There is an important Motion on the Order Paper signed by 40 or more hon. Members opposite.
[That this House is gravely concerned at the absence of effective public control over the nationalised industries, in that these are not, in practice, accountable either to Parliament or to the consumers whether on questions of policy or administration or for the standards and prices of the goods and services which they provide; and urges Her Majesty's Ministers, pending the Report of the Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries, to reply to Parliamentary Questions relating to those industries for which they are, respectively, responsible by statute; to introduce, without further delay, legislation to denationalise those industries which it is intended to restore to private enterprise; and to undertake an early review of the best means whereby, in the cases of those industries which are to remain nationalised, the inevitable evils of monopoly may be mitigated or controlled in the public interest.]
That calls for the immediate introduction of three Measures which were mentioned in the Gracious Speech of His late Majesty from the Throne. When can we get those three Measures dealing with iron and steel, the reorganisation of transport and the third matter to which we on this side of the House attach great importance—the further control of monopolies?
When can we get those Measures? Suppose the right hon. Gentleman imposes the Guillotine. Suppose he is determined to force it through at all costs. I have done a little research into previous experiences of that sort, and I do not think any of these Bills could be carried with the use of the Guillotine under 15 days from the Second Reading onwards. In those circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman will have 45 days. He has only got a few days until 5th August. He is in this position: I reckon that he will have to give another 20 days to complete the legislation which he has already brought before us.
Assuming that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to sit with only a break of two days at Christmas and a break


for the actual Bank Holiday itself, he will still be left with some 20 to 30 days spare. But I think he is forgetting the fourth matter.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I respectfully ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to try to keep nearer to the Amendment.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. We are in a little difficulty here. I can quite understand that you might find it necessary to curtail the discussion on the Amendment, although in fact the Amendment has not yet been moved, but I should have thought, with all respect, that a discussion on a substantive Motion itself can be as wide as to embrace easily everything that my hon. and learned Friend has been saying. Some of us want to intervene, if we are lucky enough to catch your eye, on similar matters.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The point is that we are not discussing a substantive Motion. We are discussing an Amendment which is being moved.

Hon. Members: It has not been moved.

Mr. Bing: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am using my right to speak to the main Motion. The fact that the Prime Minister did not see fit to explain, and the Minister of Health was, we suspect, unable to explain to the House, the course of business, is no reason why I should not speak to the Motion which they have seen fit to put before the House. I am asking whether or not we ought to have an Easter Recess at all, whether this Motion should be moved at all, because if the right hon. Gentleman withdraws it we could sit right through.
There are two Measures which the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten—the Supplies and Services Act and the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. Those Measures expire on 10th December. I hope I have the right hon. Gentleman's attention, because these are serious points. We want to know how business is going to be arranged. If he looks in the Gracious Speech, which he may recall merely from a nostalgic point of view, he will see that in that there is a definite pledge with regard to this legislation expiring on 10th December. The Gracious Speech says—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and 40 Members being present—

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Bing: I can well understand why hon. Gentlemen opposite should immediately leave the Chamber when I was proposing to refer to the Gracious Speech from the Throne. It is sad reading for them because it catalogues a series of promises which they failed to carry out. I do not want to go into the whole matter. I merely ask what the right hon. Gentleman intends to do on one issue, because whether or not we adjourn for Easter will depend upon what his legislative intentions are about the Supplies and Services Act and the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947.
In the Gracious Speech the policy of the Government was outlined as follows:
You will be asked to authorise for a period the continuation in force of certain emergency enactments and defence regulations which are due to expire next month. My Ministers will, however, review the whole subject with the aim of reducing the number of these controls and regulations and, wherever possible, embodying those which must be kept in legislation requiring annual renewal by Parliament"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1951; Vol. 493, c. 53.]
When the right hon. Gentleman replies, he will no doubt tell us how many Acts he thinks must be passed before 10th December, because he should realise that, while we on this side were prepared to give an easy passage last year to this Measure, we shall not be so inclined this coming year, and it will mean that there will probably mean two or three weeks discussion on the great number of emergency regulations which otherwise the right hon. Gentleman will have to renew one by one.
Even supposing we do not have any Recesses at all, as far as I can work it out there is not much prospect of carrying out the right hon. Gentleman's programme, and we want to know is which items are to be dropped. Perhaps I might make a suggestion. As hon. and right hon. Members opposite have lost the confidence of the country, this Parliament should, for so long as it continues, be concerned largely with the problem of amending legislation. If I may say so, my hon. Friends gave an admirable example of how that could be done over the Army Act. We did not choose to


take advantage of the constitutional difficulties in which the right hon. Gentleman found himself. We agreed to have a Select Committee to examine the matter.
All other matters of that sort could perhaps be dealt with in that way, but that would mean removing contentious legislation from the programme. If we do not do that, what is the alternative? The constitutional machinery of the country comes to a standstill. In discussing these matters, hon. Members on this side of the House are only exercising the constitutional rights for which they were sent here. Because the right hon. Gentleman cannot send business upstairs and give enough time to discuss these matters is no reason why we should abrogate our rights, which were enjoyed by hon. Gentlemen opposite throughout the 1945–50 Parliament. We should not abrogate our rights entirely in order to facilitate contentious legislation for which the right hon. Gentleman has no mandate. That would be a complete betrayal of the reasons for which we were elected, and we are not prepared so to do.
We are determined, for example, on a Bill like that to increase the poundage on the Post Office, to put down a reasoned Amendment, in order to consider for a day whether or not the provisions that make the Post Office self-accounting should not be reimposed. That is a perfectly proper exercise of Parliamentary time. But if we do this, the right hon. Gentleman must see that there is no time for his contentious legislation. He must know what is to happen to the business of the week. We do not want to arrive at a position in which the Finance Bill is not passed, and in which there is no authority for the collection of taxes. But that is the position into which the right hon. Gentleman is leading the House by his failure to make proper provision for time to discuss these matters.
Those are the issues before the House at the moment. I am in this difficulty, that if I move the Amendment which stands in my name I may so restrict the area of debate as to prevent the right hon. Gentleman replying. I am sure that is the last thing he wants. I am sorry that the Patronage Secretary is not here, because I wanted to make one last appeal to him not to move the Closure on his right hon. Friend. We all appreciate the motives from which he does it: party

loyalty. Obviously, if he permitted the Leader of the House to speak there would be some damage done to the party cause; and nobody would criticise the Chair for accepting the Closure moved on the right hon. Gentleman, because I think it is understood in the House that he never has anything to contribute.

Mr. Speaker: I fail to relate this argument to the difference between Monday, 21st April, and Tuesday, 22nd April.

Mr. Bing: That is the difficulty I am in, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I hesitate to move the Amendment. At the moment I am speaking on the Motion, but if I move the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman may be in the difficulty of not being able to reply, and it would be very unfair to take a Parliamentary advantage of him. We do not want to take advantage of the right hon. Gentleman's lack of knowledge of the rules of the House. We all suffer equally under it and we ought to try to help him. I wanted to appeal to the Patronage Secretary to appreciate that, after all, the right hon. Gentleman is Leader of the House and we are entitled to hear him, and to hear him with respect and in silence. He is entitled to speak, and it would be rather unfortunate if the Closure were moved on him to prevent him from so doing.
I am subject to any guidance you may give us, Mr. Speaker, because I do not want it to be felt, as my name appears at the head of the Amendment, that I have taken advantage of your calling me when somebody else might wish to speak, but I think that the best course would be for me not to move my Amendment at the moment, because that might prevent a discussion on business. If it suits the convenience of the House, as I think it will, one of my hon. Friends whose names also appear to the Amendment could move it at a later stage in order that we can have a full discussion of the matter. I think that would be the best course. We felt that we ought to put the Amendment down, because it gave some indication to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that we intended to raise the matter. It is unfair not to make use of the Order Paper in order to give notice of what is intended.
Those of us who wish to raise the whole issue of the Business of the House have tried to do it in a way which is


most convenient for the House as a whole. If I now resume my seat without moving the Amendment, it is not that I have lost interest in it. It is merely that I wish to be fair to the right hon. Gentleman and to give him a chance to deal now in a serious way with what is to be the business of the House for the remainder of this Session. We can see that he cannot get it all, and it is only fair to hon. Members who are working on Amendments to let them know which Measures he intends to drop. That is the only question: What will be left out?
In those circumstances, I hope that for once we shall have a serious speech from the right hon. Gentleman, and that he will tell the House what is the business before us. I do not seek to move my Amendment at this stage, for the convenience of the House, but I hope that my hon. Friends will do so at a later stage.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: It is rather unfortunate that, owing to other pre-occupations, Members of the Government Bench are unable to be present during the course of this debate. It is particularly unfortunate that the Chief Patronage Secretary is not here. He is the instrument which frequently brings the Chairman of Ways and Means into collision with Members of the Committee. Indeed, in the small hours of this morning the collision aroused quite considerable heat.
This is a very serious matter indeed, because we recently had an instance of where the Opposition had to facilitate the passage of the amendment of the Army (Annual) Act by a proposal which ultimately will have the effect of improving that Act and bringing it up to date. That was a by-product of the emergency which arose when it was apparent to the Government, as it was to the House, that they could not get the Army Act in time unless a Select Committee were appointed.
In other words, the House of Commons had to defer its rights of discussion, had to abandon the discussion of very important Amendments and new Clauses, not because we had no interest in them but because they could not be pressed and, at the same time, the Army Act passed in time. There we have a classic illustration of a collision between the rights

of Members to debate Bills before the House and the constitutional necessities of the Government. On that occasion, the Opposition deferred to constitutional necessities and we now await what the Select Committee will decide.
This situation will arise again. As my hon. and learned Friend has pointed out—and I would urge hon. Members to realise that this is a very grave case indeed—when we come to the consideration of the Supplies and Services Bill, the Government will find themselves in a similar emergency. If they do not get that Act through in time, the vast array of powers will end and the economic structure of the country will be gravely impaired if the Measure is not carried.
I can imagine that we shall have exhortations from the Prime Minister who, towards the end of the year, will be able to point out that if these powers lapse the re-armament programme will collapse with them, because the powers of direction and the controls which are now being exercised over raw materials and in various other ways are absolutely essential to canalising the economy in the direction of the re-armament programme. Unless we are careful we shall find ourselves bullied into facilitating the passage of that Measure because the Government will have abused their position, gone on with contentious legislation and faced us with a need to put the nation's interest first, whereas the Government are putting their party interests first.
It is essential that the country as a whole should understand what is happening. When other Governments found themselves in a minority or with a very small majority, as has happened quite recently, the practice has always been either to abandon contentious legislation and confine the legislation to what is required by the Constitution and by the first requirements of the nation, or to divide their Bills into two classes—Bills which are required absolutely essentially and Bills which are not so essential.
Those which are not so essential are sent upstairs, and if they are murdered upstairs because they cannot be passed in a way which is congenial to the Government, then past Governments have always accepted their demise. In fact, I sat on Committees with the present Leader of the House, who was very dexterous in legislative assassination.
In the Parliament of 1929–31, when the Government of the day had not an absolute majority in the House of Commons, they did not seek to keep all their legislation on the Floor of the House. On the contrary, they sent the legislation upstairs, even at a time when the Chairmen of Committees were armed with far less power than they possess today, and Bill after Bill fell. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Speaker: Would the right hon. Gentleman assist me and tell me whether he is speaking in favour of the Motion or against it, and how he relates his remarks in general to the Motion before the House?

Mr. Bevan: Certainly. I understand that the Amendment has not been moved, and my contention is that if the Government want to send us away for Easter, they must face the repercussions of that decision on the legislative programme. If, however, they want to carry out the programme which they have indicated to the House and which is on the Notice Paper, they will have to abandon all holidays or—and this is a more serious contention—later in the year must face us with the necessity of coming to their rescue.
I was about to say that I remember the time when Committees upstairs were used in order to prevent certain Bills ever coming on and, indeed, at the end of every Session there was a slaughter of Bills which had failed to pass through the various stages in the House, and the Government of the day had to accept their slaughter because the legislative programme had become so congested that all the Bills could not be carried.
We are, therefore, entitled to ask the Government—and this is an exceedingly serious matter—why they have cluttered up the House with legislation and not sent certain legislation upstairs. If the Government want to ventilate certain issues and to move the Second Reading of them, in my respectful submission they ought to accept the logic of the Parliamentary situation and the logic of the electoral situation, and ought not to seek to force through the House of Commons legislation repugnant to the vast majority of the people of Great Britain.
That is the issue. It is not merely a question of the constitutional procedure of the House of Commons. It is a fact—

and we must face this fact—as my hon. and learned Friend has pointed out, that the Chairman of Committees will find themselves in increasingly embarrassing situations, having to accept Closures on discussions in Committee when quite often large numbers of hon. Members have not been able to speak. In fact, it has become so serious that it is almost as difficult to be heard in Committee now as in the House itself. That point has not been covered at all.
Last night and this morning we had one or two illustrations of it, and it is a most serious matter if the impartiality of the Chair and the objectivity of its decisions are called in question as a result of the Government seeking to avoid their own embarrassments.
That is the reason I beg and plead with the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what the Government have in mind. The National Health Service Bill is in Committee. We are to discuss it some time, I hope, tonight, and we are to discuss it again when we come back after Easter; but why does the right hon. Gentleman not face the realities of the situation? Why does he not abandon the Bill? I am quite sure that if he had the moral courage to do so, his action would be received with acclamation on both sides of the House and certainly in the country as a whole.
But we warn the Government that if they do not do it, if they insist upon forcing this legislation through the House, we cannot guarantee them any facilities whatsoever, either on the Finance Bill or the Supplies and Services Bill, despite whatever constitutional embarrassments may follow. We must not allow ourselves to be driven in this way.
We are told that we are to have two more exceedingly contentious Bills—those dealing with steel and transport. Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously believe that he will get those Bills? We shall not abandon our Parliamentary rights in order to facilitate them. We shall exercise our rights to the full and seek, in the exercise of them, to avoid coming into collision with the Chair.
I seriously suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the Government ought to reconsider the whole of their legislative programme. They ought to abandon


certain Bills uncongenial to the Opposition. I know that it is difficult for the Government, but actually the Opposition are in charge of the situation and not the Government. The Opposition are in possession of the support of the country. Bedford, I understand, has just been won. There is nothing that can do more damage to Parliament than for a Government which is in a minority in the country at the Election—which is now a heavy minority—to force legislation through for which they not only have no mandate but which is directly the opposite of what they told the country at the Election.
If Parliament is so much out of tune with what the country wants, if the Government of the day force through legislation so demonstrably against the wishes of the vast majority of the electorate, how is it possible for us continually to advise the industrial masses that they ought not to use industrial action in order to prevent legislation they do not like?
The only weapon in our armoury when we go to meetings in our constituencies and in other parts of the country, the only way to influence the trade union masses not to exercise their power to influence legislation, is when there is reciprocity between what happens here and what happens outside. Where there is no reciprocity, the Government dig a chasm between Parliament and the people, and it does Parliament a grave injustice.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) and myself are grateful for the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). It was our earnest desire that we should take this opportunity of discussing seriously the state of business in the House and of trying to face up to the implications of the situation. I deplore that on a discussion of this importance so few Members of the Government have thought fit to be here. At one stage there were fewer than 10 and they had to be recalled by a Count to reconsider the whole state of Parliamentary business on this Motion.
I say bluntly, and at once, that in the main the Government have been given every possible assistance by the Opposi-

tion since this Session started. If anyone wishes to challenge that, I am prepared to give chapter and verse to substantiate my suggestion. We may have come here with some bitter feelings after the events of the last Parliament, when some of our Members were sent to the grave by the deliberate policy of collective obstruction which was advertised by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby), at a deliberate attempt to harass people to death or illness.
The casualties which they can count were three dead, about six permanently broken and a good many people ruined in their business. We tried to dismiss that bitterness from our hearts, and tried to remember that Parliament must go on, that a Government must govern and that the necessary measures must be taken. I should like to quote some observations made by the present Minister of Housing and Local Government in a debate on the Address, when the question of Christmas Adjournment was under discussion. Personally, I completely approve of them. The right hon. Gentleman said:
Many people seem to believe that a well thought-out and constructive policy means a large number of complicated Bills to be passed into law. … Parliament has, of course, three main purposes: first, to vote supplies; second, to deal with legislation, mainly that put forward by the Government of the day; but third, and of equal importance, what Mr. Asquith used to call 'the Grand request of the Nation.' The right hon. Gentleman calls it 'advice and counsel,' and I think all of us know what it means. It means chivvying the Minister."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1951; Vol. 493, c. 839–40.]
I do not agree with the last sentence, and we have not tried to do that. But I agree that this is one of the occasions when we are partaking in part of the Grand inquest of the Nation," when we are considering means and methods and the general position.
Hon. Members are being put under a very great strain by the Leader of the House, but very little reference has been made to the strain that is being caused to the staff of the House, perhaps the most severe of all being that caused to the limited staff upstairs who have to record the long hours of debate and transcribe them as the business proceeds. I say quite seriously that the Leader of the House has treated the House with constant discourtesy over the last three or four months.
I can quote as an appropriate example the business announced for the first day after the resumption, assuming that this Motion is carried. Let us consider the business as it has been announced for that one day which, after all, is the one day that will be under discussion if the Amendment is moved. The right hon. Gentleman said that he proposes to take the Second Reading of the Empire Settlement Bill. That Bill introduces matters of profound importance. Not only is it an important Bill, but it is one in connection with which an Amendment for rejection was tabled some days ago by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is an almost unprecedented occurrence that, although I think the initiative came from hon. Members supporting the Government, they have on the Order Paper the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally).
The Leader of the House says that he hopes to get that business through by seven o'clock. That means that there will be approximately three hours' debate, after allowing for the possibility of Private Notice Questions, and so on, to discuss a Bill and an Amendment for its rejection. That is treating the House with contempt. When one says anything like that to the right hon. Gentleman he says, "I am only expressing the hope." Also, he proposes to take the Committee stage of the Money Resolution, and he expects to get that by seven o'clock.
Then he proposes to take the Committee and remaining stages of the Customs and Excise Bill. I take a lot of notice of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch, who, I am sure, takes just as much notice of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition who will make the principal decision. But I am by no means certain that he is in a position to give an undertaking about this exceedingly important Bill.

Mr. Bing: Perhaps I was discourteous to the House. I wanted to intimate that, having read the Report of the Select Committee which advocates that the changes we have suggested would be better made in the Finance Bill, it might be more convenient for everyone concerned to choose the occasion of the Finance Bill rather than this Bill. This would facilitate the putting down of

Amendments if we are to allow the Bill to go through. Of course, it is a matter for the Leader of the Opposition and not for me.

Mr. Hale: It is a matter for all of us to consider very carefully. It is a matter for consideration and discussion, possibly through the usual channels. Certainly, so far as we know, no such intimation has been given to the Leader of the House about this Bill of 300 pages which is the second item on the first day after the resumption. Then there is the Second Reading of the New Towns Bill, which is to be taken on the same day. Surely we are entitled to say that this is treating the House with absolute contempt. There is a programme here which could not conveniently be put through in fewer than three days.
Then there is a Scottish Motion and, to conclude, there is also on this one day the Report and Third Reading of the Electricity Supply (Meters) Bill. That has aroused considerable comment, and it may well be the subject of more comment because of the public indignation about the general position with regard to electricity meters. That is the programme for the first day after the proposed Adjournment.
I should like to refer to what happened last week and on a previous occasion. I was in the House yesterday for 15 hours waiting for the discussion on the draft Fertilisers Order which was exempted business which could be taken after the Motion to report Progress on the Health Service Bill. I observed the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture sitting here through the many hours, anticipating that something would happen, perhaps a little tremulous, looking like a middleweight boxer being thrust into the ring for the first time in a heavyweight bout.
But what happened? Without any explanation to the House, the Adjournment was moved at the end of 15 hours' waiting and the other business was put off to some future date. It has happened before. I have complained about it. There was a Bill before the House for Second Reading—the Marine and Aviation Insurance Bill—a Bill of great importance and fascination, with its questions of bottomry and barratry, in which my hon. Friends have constantly shown an interest.

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Member is going beyond the scope of a Motion about the Easter Adjournment when he introduces questions of bottomry and barratry.

Mr. Hale: Then I will not pursue that, Sir.
The point I was making was that that Second Reading was down for debate some days ago, during the progress on the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill. At the end of the discussion of that Bill, the Patronage Secretary rose and suddenly moved the Adjournment of the House without any explanation. The other Bill was never called and has never been called to this day.
We are in a state of muddle, muddle, muddle, in which there seems to be a complete lack of purpose from day to day, with hon. Members who try to take a serious part in the affairs of the House being completely and constantly deprived of a reasonable opportunity of doing so. The Marine and Aviation Insurance Bill will inevitably involve consideration of the whole question of National Insurance in which we, on this side of the House, have taken a very profound interest. Obviously, it is matter of very great importance and it may be that with the Government's programme in this congested state the right hon. Gentleman thought it right to put that Bill back until after the discussion of the Finance Bill.
It may be right to do that, but I suggest that he should tell us what he is going to put back. The very first Bill on the Order Paper in this Session was the British Museum Bill. That Bill appeared on the Order Paper for something like 50 consecutive Parliamentary days. A Motion for the rejection of that Bill appeared on the Order Paper for the same number of days, in the names of three hon. Members opposite. We have sought, with questions about business on Thursdays, to find out what was the Government's intention with regard to that Measure; but there has been no information.
There have been many similar examples. There is the very important Currency and Banknotes Bill which seeks to fix the fiduciary issue at a normal figure of £1,400 million; but before it is brought to the House for Second Reading, the Treasury have increased that

figure to £1,450 million. Nemesis has overtaken that Bill before it has had a Parliamentary birth.
One could go on quoting examples, but I do not want to weary the House. My learned Friend has made out what I think is a very profound case in this matter, and my right hon. Friend, the Member for Ebbw Vale has emphasised it. Everyone who values the traditions of the House and the freedom of debate and discussion must be facing the present Parliamentary situation with a genuine apprehension for the liberties, decencies and virtues of political life.
We have never been vouchsafed a single word from the right hon. Gentleman as to what he proposes to do to try to ease this situation. I know that I am speaking only for myself, but I feel certain that my hon. and right hon. Friends would agree that we should always be prepared to co-operate if we could have an early assurance that this minority Government, lacking the support of the country—and day by day receiving less support—would not try to introduce the Steel Bill, which will destroy a great industry and which is to be introduced by a right hon. Gentleman who pleaded, two years ago, that the uncertainty hanging over the steel industry would affect production, prosperity and our national well being.
If we could have an assurance that these controversial Measures for which the Government have no mandate, because they never pooled the majority of votes of the people—would be dropped, we should be most happy to spend the time of the House as it can usefully be spent in the intelligent discussion of small Measures and the passing of the necessary legislation, and keep the Government in office until the vengeance of the country descends upon them.
Earlier, I said that we have not tried to obstruct the Government. I think that something like 500 Statutory Instruments have been introduced during the life of this Government. Only in a few cases have we tabled a Prayer and only once have we taken it to a vote. We have normally taken two or three together, to facilitate business. The discussions that have taken place late into the evening appear recently to have been terminated by the right hon. Gentleman moving the adjournment of the debate when the last bus has gone,


in a desire to cause the maximum amount of inconvenience to hon. Members on this side of the House. I wish he would face up to it and say whether that is his intention and purpose, because it is difficult to interpret it in any other way.
There was a proposal to extend the vacation on the Adjournment for the Christmas Recess; we now have a proposal on the Adjournment for the Easter Recess which seeks to restrict the vacation. When it was suggested that we should adjourn for seven and a half weeks at Christmas, and when one hon. Member after another got up and warned the Government that they were wasting Parliamentary time at a most difficult time of the year, a General Election having just taken place, and when we pleaded with them not to waste all this time, the only argument they put forward was, "We must have time to think."
Is the right hon. Gentleman now saying that they have no more to think about now than they had then? Is there not as much need for thought at the moment, with crisis after crisis; with the Government's lack of support in the country; with unemployment and distress growing in Lancashire; with announcement after announcement that menaces our security, including the further New Zealand cut in British car imports announced today? Have they not something to think about, and would it not be wise for them to start thinking? I have tried not to be discourteous to anybody, but the House will remember that the original intention was that the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) should be Leader of the House. But it was found that his greater pre-occupation and responsibility as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would make it difficult for him to discharge this exacting duty at that time.
I think the time has come to say that the present Leader of the House cannot carry out both his jobs with justice to the House. With respect, he has not done it with justice to the House. In the last few days it has become the leadership of the Gadarene swine, and it may have some of the same results. I plead with him to consider the situation, because all those who are interested in the maintenance of the decencies of Parliamentary life deplore the fact that we are getting into this situation.
I do not want to prolong this discussion, because I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to make contributions to this important debate; but I hope that, as a result of this discussion, both parties will consider the Parliamentary programme and what action can be taken to deal with it. It is abundantly clear that the Steel Bill must go. It is abundantly clear that the Transport Bill must go. I plead that this foolish and controversial National Health Service Bill, with its penalties on the crippled, on the halt and the maimed and on the blind should go, too.
I ask the Government to consider it in that light. I am perfectly certain, knowing the point of view of my hon. and right hon. Friends, that if that were done every effort would be made to try to facilitate the reasonably necessary business of the House so that we would have a chance of considering the vital measures that need fair and profound consideration.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I only rise because up to this stage in the debate we have not had any word from the Leader of the House. I suspect that he does not realise that he, with other of his right hon. Friends, are on their knees before us in the House this evening. They are totally incapable of passing the legislation which they promised during the General Election, and they are incapable of passing the legislation which they promised their own back benchers in the Gracious Speech from the Throne.
It has taken only six months for the people of this country to give their verdict on the present Government in the county council elections, and it has taken about as long for back benchers opposite to give their opinion on the promises made by their Front Bench in the Gracious Speech. It is not without significance that they should have put down Motions seeking to force early de-nationalisation on the Government Front Bench.
The only thing that surprises me is that hon. Members opposite, who were parties to one of the greatest frauds in political history in the General Election, should have retained a touching confidence in their own Front Bench when it comes to putting forward legislation promised by that Front Bench, because


it is now true that nothing of that kind can be introduced in the present situation.
The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) has done a careful calculation of the time it would take to pass the legislation at present before the House, and I have in my hand all the outstanding Government Bills which have already been introduced this Session. There are 24 such Bills, and they amount to 575 Clauses. Allowing for progress to be no faster than that we are making on the National Health Service Bill, and allowing for 100 sitting days for legislation in the year, it could take 23 years to pass them—23 years at the present rate, but if the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch were to decide to filibuster it might be a great deal longer.
The Leader of the House would be 82. His Parliamentary-Secretary would be 61. The Prime Minister would be 101. He might be dreaming of forming a new Government, but I suspect that he would be dealing with "the whips" in another place. I have no reason to object. I shall be only 50, the youngest Member of this House, and perfectly willing to devote the next 23 years to its business.
Of course, the Government can use the Closure. They have used the Closure in the past, but if they wish to use the Closure, I suggest they appoint as Patronage Secretary a man with St. Vitus's dance in the hope that it will get through on the nod. I am making no reflection on the Chair for accepting the Closure because, as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have said, the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman are in a very difficult situation when business has to be pressed through.
I would say in conclusion that, in effect, the power of promoting legislation no longer lies with the Government Front Bench. We are willing to co-operate with them in introducing Measures which are beneficial for the general administration of the country. Indeed, in the case of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill we did a very constructive piece of work by putting down Amendments and by forcing a Select Committee on a reluctant Front Bench, and we are quite willing to do that sort of work in the future, because hon. Members on this side of the House will not tolerate class

measures imposed by a party which has no majority in the country.
The right hon. Gentleman is in a very difficult position. If he gets up now and tells us that a lot of the Measures he is piloting through are to be dropped, so much the better; if he does not, the pilot who is piloting them through will be dropped—which will be so much the worse for him—because the Front Bench opposite and the Leader of the House cannot get their business through. We are discussing this Motion for the Adjournment of the House for Easter to get an assurance from the Government as to what are their intentions.
I beg to move the Amendment that stands—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I bow to the wishes of hon. Members on this side of the House, and I hope that other hon. Members will rise in the course of this debate to try to elicit from the Leader of the House some assurance as to what are his intentions.

5.56 p.m.

Miss Jennie Lee: I hesitate to believe that arguments which have been put forward from this side of the House took the Leader of the Government and hon Members opposite by surprise. I think we may begin by assuming that hon. Members opposite have had many anxious hours trying to decide their duty to their party, their duty to their Government and how they can conduct the business of this place in the next month.
The decision is probably being made at this moment not here but in a room upstairs. It is common knowledge that there are considerable differences of opinion inside the ranks of the Tory Party. I should be the last person to chide them on that score. There are also marked differences in the ranks of my party, and neither side I hope will ever apologise for that situation. We are not living in a dictatorship country. We do not admire machine politics, and we think that the rights of the individual Member of Parliament must be respected within parties as well as within this House.
I repeat that the future of this country is probably being decided in a Committee Room upstairs—No. 10, I am informed—and I say that for these reasons: the party opposite is now in a dilemma. It cannot run away from the knowledge that


it has opposition in the country and, therefore, in this House is much weaker than it was at the time of the General Election. It also cannot run away from the knowledge that opinion in the country and in this House is moving in a progressive direction.
This is part of the dilemma of hon. Members opposite. Some of us can not only sympathise, we can understand, because we have had the experience between 1945 and 1950 of a Labour Government with sufficient authority both within Parliament and in the country to go ahead with great vigour in carrying out our own Socialist policy. We had to live through a Parliamentary situation following the Election of 1950 in which our majority in this House was gravely curtailed and in which support in the country for hon. Members opposite had grown, and we were faced with the dilemma of how we could conduct the business of Parliament?
There were some of us who wanted in that difficult Parliamentary situation for us to go ahead as vigorously as between 1945 and 1950 with our own Socialist policy and our promises to the electors. That was our wish, and we faced the logic of that wish. We impressed upon the leaders of our own party that they must quickly go to the country once again to strengthen their majority. It was never our case that we should force through an unwilling House of Commons, against an unprepared public opinion, legislation which it did not wish to have.
The leader of my party decided that it was better to carry on a bit longer with, what has already been suggested the Government should now do, in the main, standstill legislation and amending legislation rather than seeking to go further ahead, as our mandate entitled us to do.
That was the decision our party made. It was a perfectly proper and legitimate one. Inside our own ranks we had our say. The Left lost and the Right won. We had to postpone for a time the occasions when we could sustain Measures like an entirely new Health Service and the further expansion of national ownership and control which is essential if we are to safeguard our people's interests.
I suggest to the Leader of the House that his party is now in exactly the same dilemma as we were, the only trouble

being that they are going in the opposite direction. Some of us wanted to go a bit further and faster Left but the balance within our party and within this House did not at that time enable us to do so.
It is quite clear from the discussions now going on upstairs, of which we have a certain knowledge, that there are very anxious and very ardent extreme Right Wing elements in the party opposite who are pressing on the Government that it is their duty to de-nationalise steel and to make further raids on the Health Service. If they can attack the cripples, they can no doubt exert their ingenuity to find other classes to be attacked.
But if inside the Tory Party the Right wins, the logic of that is surely an immediate General Election. There was no mandate, even at the last General Election, for the Measures which are now being put forward by the Government, and there is less mandate for them now. On the other hand, if the right wing of the Tory Party, and those who are seeking not to go as fast in their retreat as the others who would compromise on issues like the Health Service, steel and others about which my hon. Friends and I care so particularly, lose upstairs, then the Government are entitled to have a longer life, for one can mark time on that basis.
But what is utterly intolerable is for the Government to fail to make up its mind about either of those two quite clear positions. I say to the Government: go to the country and ask for a mandate to retreat further, or attempt to stand still, and we will send you to the country soon enough. What we certainly cannot have day after day and year after year is the sort of thing that is happening now. An hon. Member apparently looked forward to another 23 years in which to carry out the Government's legislation. I do not accept that for obvious reasons.
We can mark time day after day, and then in a month or two's time we shall find every Tory newspaper in the country screaming that the Socialists are bringing Parliamentary Government into contempt. Therefore, let us be explicit, even to the point of repeating ourselves, so that there may be a hope that the substance of this point will be clear not only to Parliament but to the country.
If the Government continue with their Bill to impose further health charges they


are doing it knowingly—we are telling them plainly enough—and they are using up Parliamentary time in such a way that it is deliberately creating a situation in which they cannot get the Finance Bill through in time. Is that the Government's intention? Are the Government seeking to work a fast trick by expanding the time taken up by legislation to which we cannot agree and on which we must express our point of view and then blackmailing us as they did in the case of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Act?
Fair and honourable warning has been given to the House of Commons. The respect that we all give to the Chair is very precious, and I believe that it is most precious to the poorest people in the country. There are elements on the benches opposite and among their supporters outside whom we must watch very carefully indeed. We see more than a sign of impatience on their part. This being a Parliamentary democracy, they must at least come and justify in daylight what they propose to do.
Therefore, let us be quite clear that if the Government go ahead with the health charges legislation and other such legislation they are deliberately and knowingly, with all the facts brought to their attention, creating a situation in which either they cannot get the Finance Bill and other essential legislation in time or they are blackmailing us to surrender our right to our own point of view and the point of view of our constituents in order to facilitate them in carrying out a reactionary programme which they have a diminishing right to do either in terms of the Parliamentary situation or the mood of the country.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Crookshank.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Swingler: On a point of order. Before the Minister replies, Mr. Speaker, may I seek your guidance about the course of the debate? I wish to ask you if you would give the House an assurance that you will not accept a Motion for the Closure until my hon. Friends have had an opportunity to move their Amendment?

Mr. Speaker: I can give no such assurance.

Mr. Crookshank: rose—

Mr. Driberg: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: I have already given ample opportunity to speak to all hon. Members whose names were put to the Amendment, and I cannot go further.

Mr. Driberg: Further to that point of order. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, by the accident of whom your eye happened to light upon, about which I make no complaint, you have called hon. Friends of mine who have ranged very widely over the general Motion, quite properly within the rules of order, and have initiated a very important and interesting general debate on the Government programme, and so on. That is the general debate to which, I take it, the Leader of the House is now about to reply. But there has so far been not one single speech addressed to the much more limited point raised in the Amendment proposing to change the actual date from Monday to Tuesday. I and, no doubt, other hon. Members had prepared speeches addressing ourselves to that limited point, and I feel that it would be unfortunate if the debate were to be artificially curtailed before that quite different aspect of it could be aired.

Mr. Speaker: The fact that no reference has been made to the alternative date in the Amendment can hardly be blamed upon me, because I have called the three hon. Members whose names were put to the Amendment.

Mr. Paget: Further to that point of order. When you were not in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, a discussion took place while my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) was speaking about the effect that the moving of the Amendment would have in narrowing the breadth of the debate, and as a matter of courtesy and to provide the Leader of the House with an opportunity to reply on the broader question, my hon. and learned Friend deliberately did not move the Amendment—

Mr. Hale: And said so.

Mr. Paget: —and said so; and said so for that reason. What he also did was to ask me to do that for him. I have risen on every occasion to try to catch the eye of the Chair when the Leader of the


House did not take the opportunity of doing so, but I have been unsuccessful in catching the eye of the Chair. I should be very short if the opportunity should arise. I do ask that you should not accept a Closure Motion until we have moved this Amendment, which we regard as important and which was not moved in the first place merely as a matter of courtesy.

Mr. Speaker: What I would accept would be a completely formal moving of the Amendment, if that were required, before a Closure.

Mr. Driberg: Further to that point of order. I suggest that this would be the wrong moment to do that, because, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has explained, it was to leave the Leader of the House free to range over the wider field that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) deliberately refrained from moving the Amendment. Therefore, surely the Amendment would have to be moved and seconded after the Leader of the House has spoken, and surely a few brief remarks in support of it, and explainng its purpose, would be in order.

Mr. Adams: Might I respectfully suggest, Sir, that it would be most unusual to accept the Closure Motion on a debate of this kind and that it might be for the convenience of the House if, after the Leader of the House has spoken, the suggested Amendment should be moved and then voted on, after which we could return to the general debate on the Motion.

Mr. Jack Jones: In support of the claim put forward by my hon. Friend, I should like to seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, about the forthcoming reply of the Minister. If we do not elicit from him the date when the Steel Bill will be put before the House, could we have your guidance as to how we can know, because we are anxious to have the same time to prepare our defence as was given to the Iron and Steel Federation to prepare theirs.

Mr. Speaker: That is not for me. I have no idea of the intention of Ministers and when they propose to introduce Bills. It would be quite wrong and improper for me to make any remarks on

the Closure Motion when such a Motion is not before the House, but which I shall have to decide at the moment if and when it is moved. I am told that in my absence there has been some misunderstanding about this Motion, and I would not desire to take advantage of a technicality, which I could well do, and prevent a Division on the Amendment. If there has been some misunderstanding I will give every opportunity to hon. Members, if they desire to do so, to move the Amendment formally.

Mr. Adams: Not yet.

Mr. Speaker: At some time I will accept it and put it to the House on the understanding that I do so in order not to risk a prolonged discussion or interfere with the due exercise of my authority as to the Closure if and when it is moved, but to put the matter in a proper and fair perspective. I hope that that solution is acceptable to the House. May I say that if the Amendment were moved now and I were to put the Question, "That 'Monday, the 21st April' stand part of the Question," in my judgment both the original Motion and the Amendment will be before the House. If that suggestion is taken advantage of it can be done in that way.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: May I put this point to you, Mr. Speaker? Am I right in thinking that hon. Members who want to speak on the main Motion will have an opportunity of doing so before the Amendment is moved?

Mr. Speaker: If the Amendment is now moved and I put the Question, "That 'Monday, 21st April,' stand part of the Question," any subsequent speech would be in order if it were on the main Motion or on the Amendment, as both would be before the House.

Mr. Bevan: Do you propose, Sir, to call upon the Leader of the House to make a reply to the general debate, and subsequently at your convenience, Mr. Speaker, call for the Amendment to be moved and seconded, so that we can divide both on the Amendment and the substantive Motion?

Mr. Speaker: If I have an understanding from hon. Members that they will


propose and move the Amendment formally, I am prepared to accept it. Otherwise, I must abide by the rules of order.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Crookshank: We have had a rather unusual debate and the Opposition have taken this opportunity, which was open to them, to range over a very wide field. Indeed, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) specifically stated that the Amendment was not moved in order that there should be a free range over a very wide field. It falls to me briefly to answer one or two points which were made, and I do not intend to range over a wide field at all. It certainly would be very surprising if any Government of the day took the opportunity on this Motion to discourse at large about the Parliamentary programme which they had in mind in the ensuing months. Hon. Members opposite know that perfectly well and, for all the deep sincerity with which speeches have been made by those who have taken part in the debate, I do not suppose that they expect me to do anything of the kind.
The real point of the Motion and the Amendment is to decide for how long we should adjourn when we depart, as I hope we will, tomorrow and the Government have put down a Motion in a form which says we should return on Monday, 21st April, while others have on the Order Paper a suggestion that we should return on Tuesday on the grounds that, generally, Tuesday is the day on which the Recess ends. The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) said that there was no precedent for what we are proposing, but there he did not conform to the facts. There have been innumerable precedents, both at the Easter and Whitsun Recesses, and, therefore, there is nothing strange about it.
Hon. Members opposite will realise that, through no fault of theirs—perhaps it was difficult for them to do otherwise—in the last two days the Parliamentary business has not been progressing with the speed which had been anticipated. Therefore, the Government came to the conclusion that a day earlier in the week after the Easter Recess was not asking the House as a whole to make any very great

sacrifice of leisure to come back to resume the work which lies ahead. That is the only reason why this Motion has been put down in this form.
As I say, there are plenty of precedents for it, and it has been pointed out that we have to get the business of the Finance Bill through rather earlier this year owing to the fact that the Budget was introduced earlier than usual, which compresses our time rather more than in a normal year. So it is to suit the convenience of the House as a whole that we are asking hon. Members to come back a day earlier.
As for the general questions which were asked and the points which were raised about the affairs of the party on this side of the House, the internal arrangements of the party on that side, whether the local government elections were successful, whether we ought to go to the country now, and this, that and the other thing, these points, while all very interesting, do not constitute a strong argument for resisting the Government's Motion. Now that we have had a considerable discussion and there is other business to embark upon I hope the House will be ready to come to a decision, realising that there is nothing unprecedented in what we are being asked to do. We are merely adopting what I am sure a majority of the House will consider to be commonsense.

Mr. Bevan: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the right hon. Gentleman rise to move the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing)?

Mr. Bevan: I was rising to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House a simple question before he sits down. While it is perfectly true that this is an ordinary Motion, I think he will agree that this is an extraordinary situation. Does he think that he has done himself and the House justice in his perfunctory answer to a debate which has gone on for some time? Does he not think that he has done himself less than justice? If he does, then the sooner he resigns his position the better it will be.

Mr. Crookshank: All I can say in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, whom I always try to answer, is that the length of the debate should not necessarily be the governing factor in the length of the


reply. I am quite sure, from the way in which we carry on our discussions in this House, that it would be to the detriment of the House as a whole if speeches from the Government Front Bench were always governed by the length of time taken by the previous debate.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, may I seek your guidance? Hon. Members know that you are a jealous guardian of the privileges of hon. Members on both sides. We also know that the Leader of the House is the servant of the House while acting in that capacity. We also know that on another occasion you rightly said that you cannot compel a Minister to reply to any question that is put. That we understand, but as the Leader of the House is the servant of the House, and as his capacity is to lead the House, can you advise us as to what procedure we can adopt to maintain the privileges of hon. Members and to see that the Leader of the House treats the House with courtesy and deals with the questions raised when a debate of this importance takes place?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. I have known many Leaders of the House give answers which did not seem satisfactory to Members of the Opposition. Does the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) rise to move the Amendment?

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Paget: I beg to move to leave out "Monday 21st,"and to insert "Tuesday 22nd."

Mr. Speaker: Does any hon. Member second that?

Mr. Driberg: I beg to second the Amendment.
May I make a few observations in doing so, Mr. Speaker? I will be quite brief but, after all, we have had no debate on the narrower point of whether the date should be a day later than the date suggested by the Government.
By moving the original Motion, I take it that the Prime Minister exhausted his right to speak in this debate, but I am sure that if he were to return to the House to give a fuller and perhaps more courteous reply to the debate than the Leader of the House has given, you, Mr. Speaker, would allow him to do so, by

the leave of the House. It is a pity that the Prime Minister thought fit to remove himself immediately after moving what is, after all, his own Motion, which has led to quite an important debate. Now, however, we turn to the narrower issue of whether the date should be Tuesday, 22nd April, instead of Monday, 21st. I want to advance, briefly, two reasons why that later date should be accepted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), referred to the hard work and the long hours that hon. Members—and not least the staff of the House—have put in, and of their need for a reasonable break at Easter. I would also refer to the great strain there must be on Members of the Government themselves, on the Ministers. As we can see, they are physically and mentally tired men. They are, one might say, punch-drunk—punch-drunk as a result of the county council election results and as a result of having had a taste of effective opposition from this side of the House.
On a somewhat similar occasion in 1944, in war-time, the then Leader of the House who was then, as he is now, the Foreign Secretary, referred to the very point I am making. He was pleading for an Adjournment until a Tuesday instead of coming back on a Monday. He said that Ministers:
… are having quite as heavy burdens at this moment as at any time during the war. Monday is the one day which we have when we are able to concentrate upon our Ministerial duties."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1944: Vol. 406, c. 207.]
Although it may be thought in retrospect that those were very burdensome days, we all know that the duties of a Minister in an ordinary Department are somewhat heavier in peace-time and at a time of reconstruction than they are in war-time, when, necessarily, all the national effort is concentrated on the one purpose of winning the war: perhaps the Ministers in the Service Departments had exceptionally heavy responsibilities then, but other Ministers were not so busy.
Now I will turn to one other point, equally briefly, so as not to infringe the spirit of your appeal, Mr. Speaker. I object very much to the habit some of us have and, still more, which some newspapers have, of referring to Recesses of this House as holidays. As a matter of fact, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) fell into this bad habit this afternoon, when he re-


ferred to the coming Easter "holiday," and I must rebuke him for doing so. The hon. Member for Oldham, West, referred to it as a "vacation." This may be true of Recesses enjoyed by hon. Members who represent compact urban constituencies. It is certainly not true of hon. Members who represent rural county seats. If I may, I want to quote from an eloquent speech made on another similar occasion in 1944—

Mr. Hale: I hope my hon. Friend will let me make a personal explanation. I represent an industrial seat with 20,000 unemployed, which is a substantial responsibility, but I shall be opening a discussion on world development in the south of France on Easter Monday and shall be continuing it throughout Easter.

Mr. Driberg: I appreciate that my hon. Friend is a veritable Atlas in having the weight of the whole world upon his shoulders and not only the serious constituency responsibilities to which he has referred. I was about to quote from a speech by the then hon. Member for The Wrekin, now the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate), who was lodging a similar objection to the use of the word "holiday." He said:
… county Members—have very large areas to cover and very large numbers of people who wish to see them before we embark on this tremendous programme of legislation which is coming before this House. So far as I am concerned, and I know many other county Members who reside in their constituencies are in the same boat, the time allowed by our being recalled here on 16th January is quite insufficient for the purpose of familiarising ourselves with the numerous problems which our constituents wish to place before us. We are often told that this House … is out of touch with the electorate. Surely one of the few occasions when we can hope to remedy that is during the Parliamentary Recess—not the Parliamentary holiday—when we get an opportunity of meeting constituents who wish to see us and discuss a variety of problems with us."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December, 1944; Vol. 406, c. 1815.]
That is a cogent expression of a real and valid argument for accepting the later rather than the earlier date. Even if it is only one day later, it compensates for Easter Monday which is, I suppose, a dies non for most hon. Members, so far as constituency work is concerned. It will give them one clear week in which to meet their constituents—a week in which hon. and right hon. Members opposite can learn how

far, indeed, they are out of touch with the mood and opinion of the electors of the nation.
Finally, it is obviously highly desirable that they should be away from Westminster and in places where they can do somewhat less harm than they can do here. The sooner the feeble and obsolescent gang of nonentities and half-wits and City slickers who form Her Majesty's Government today—an alliance, indeed, of the sheep and the goats—go to the country for good and stay there, in the disgraceful limbo to which history will relegate them, the better for all of us.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to propose the Question. The Question is, "That ' Monday, 21st' stand part of the Question."

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn): rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. George Porter: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I desire to call attention to the fact that when you called, "Lock the doors," certain Members on the Government side interfered with the attendant who was on duty at the door.

Mr. Speaker: I did not see that.

Mr. Porter: Further to that point of order. I ask for a report.

Mr. Speaker: Will the Assistant-Serjeant at Arms report? I did not see it.

The Assistant-Serjeant at Arms: I believe, Sir, that one or two hon. Members got through the door after your direction, "Lock the doors."

Mr. Speaker: The Division must start again. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think so. There appears to have been some irregularity about this Division.

Mr. A. Woodburn: (seated and covered): As I came out of the Division Lobby, Mr. Speaker, I witnessed some rather violent scenes. It may be on that


account that it is suggested that you might inquire into what happened at the entrance to the Lobby. There was certainly a good deal of violent jostling and the attendant seemed to be in some danger of personal injury.

Mr. Speaker: I did not observe anything myself. I shall find out about it. If there is any question of an irregularity in the Division, I shall have to put the Question again. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes.

Mr. I. Mikardo: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order. Surely, with respect, the only effect of your putting the Question again, Mr. Speaker, is to give advantage to those very Members who acted in an irregular manner by pushing into the Division Lobby after you had called, "Lock the doors." Surely, one should not give advantage to Members who were guilty of an irregularity.

Mr. Speaker: The report I received from the Assistant-Serjeant at Arms was that certain Members moved into the Lobby—[An HON. MEMBER: "One Member."]—after the order to lock the doors was given. That is irregular. They have no business to go there after the order. I have to put the Question—

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker would not the effect of giving the Division again be merely to count the numbers again? On that occasion, I saw one Member, at least, excluded from the Lobby, although he tried to get in, whereas to call the Division again would enable him to vote. Therefore, I submit, with respect, that it does not cure the position—it makes it worse, to have another Division.

Mr. Speaker: The result in a Division is no concern of mine at all. It has been pointed out to me by an hon. Member that an irregularity has taken place in a Division. The consequences of the Division are no concern of mine.

Mr. Woodburn: (seated and covered): May I, with respect, suggest that it would be appropriate that the Members who thus disobeyed the customary procedure of the House should have their votes not counted?

Mr. Speaker: As we have made a mess of that Division, we shall have to start again. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes.

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 288; Noes, 260.

Division No. 79.]
AYES
[6.40 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Donner, P. W.


Alport, C. J. M.
Brooman-White, R. C.
Drewe, C.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bullard, D. G.
Duthie, W. S.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Bullock, Capt. M.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.


Arbuthnot, John
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Burden, F. F. A.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Erroll, F. J.


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Carson, Hon. E.
Fell, A.


Baker, P. A. D.
Cary, Sir Robert
Finlay, Graeme


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Channon, H.
Fisher, Nigel


Baldwin, A. E.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.


Banks, Col. C.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Barber, A. P. L.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Fort, R.


Baxter, A. B.
Cole, Norman
Foster, John


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Colegate, W. A.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lansdale)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Gage, C. H.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Galbraith, Cmdr T. D. (Pollok)


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Cranborne, Viscount
Gammans, L. D.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Birch, Nigel
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd


Bishop, F. P.
Crouch, R. F.
Glyn, Sir Ralph


Black, C. W.
Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Godber, J. B.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Bossom, A. C.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Gough, C. F. H.


Bowen, E. R.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh. S.)
Gower, H. R.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Davidson, Viscountess
Graham, Sir Fergus


Boyle, Sir Edward
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Gridley, Sir Arnold


Braine, B. R.
Deedes, W. F.
Grimond, J.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Digby, S. Wingfield
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)




Harden, J. R. E.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Scott, R. Donald


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Shepherd, William


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Hay, John
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Heald, Sir Lionel
Markham, Major S. F.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Higgs, J. M. C.
Marples, A. E.
Snadden, W. McN.


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Soames, Capt. C.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maude, Angus
Spier, R. M.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Maudling, R.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Hollis, M. C.
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Mellor, Sir John
Stevens, G. P.


Hope, Lord John
Molson, A. H. E.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Hopkinson, Henry
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Horobin, I. M.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Storey, S.


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Nicholls, Harmar
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Studholme, H. G.


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Summers, G. S.


Hurd, A. R.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Sutcliffe, H.


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Nutting, Anthony
Teeling, W.


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Oakshott, H. D.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Odey, G. W.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Jennings, R.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Kaberry, D.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Tilney, John


Keeling, Sir Edward
Osborne, C.
Touche, G. C.


Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Partridge, E.
Turner, H. F. L.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.
Turton, R. H.


Lambton, Viscount
Perkins, W. R. D.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pato, Brig. C. H. M.
Vane, W. M. F.


Leather, E. H. C.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Vosper, D. F.


Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Pitman, I. J.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Powell, J. Enoch
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Lindsay, Martin
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Linstead, H. N.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Llewellyn, D. T.
Profumo, J. D.
Watkinson, H. A.


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Raikes, H. V.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Wellwood, W.


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Redmayne, M.
White, Baker, (Canterbury)


Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Low, A. R. W.
Renton, D. L. M.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Robertson, Sir David
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Wills, G.


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Robson-Brown, W.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


McAdden, S. J.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Wood, Hon. R.


McCallum, Major D.
Roper, Sir Harold



McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Russell, R. S.
Mr. Butcher and Mr. Heath


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Bing, G. H. C.
Carmichael, J.


Adams, Richard
Blackburn, F.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.


Albu, A. H.
Blenkinsop, A.
Champion, A. J.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Blyton, W. R.
Chapman, W. D.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Boardman, H.
Chetwynd, G. R.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Clunie, J.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Bowden, H. W.
Cocks, F. S.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Bowles, F. G.
Coldrick, W.


Awbery, S. S.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Collick, P. H.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Brockway, A. F.
Cook, T. F.


Baird, J.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Balfour, A.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Cove, W. G.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Bence, C. R.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Crosland, C. A. R.


Benn, Wedgwood
Burke, W. A.
Crossman, R. H. S.


Benson, G.
Burton, Miss F. E.
Cullen, Mrs. A.


Beswick, F.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Callaghan, L. J.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)







Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Rhodes, H.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Richards, R.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S).
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Deer, G.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Delargy, H. J.
Keenan, W.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Donnelly, D. L.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Ross, William


Driberg, T. E. N.
King, Dr. H. M.
Royle, C.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Edelman, M.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Lewis, Arthur
Short, E. W.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Logan, D. G.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
MacColl, J. E.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
McGhee, H. G.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Ewart, R.
McInnes, J.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Fernyhough, E.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Snow, J. W.


Field, W. J.
McLeavy, F.
Sorensen, R. W.


Fienburgh, W.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Finch, H. J.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Sparks, J. A.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Steele, T.


Follick, M.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Foot, M. M.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Forman, J. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Gaiskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Manuel, A. C.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Gibson, C. W.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Glanville, James
Mayhew, C. P.
Swingler, S. T.


Gooch, E. G.
Mellish, R. J.
Sylvester, G. O.


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Messer, F.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mikardo, Ian
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Mitchison, G. R.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Monslow, W.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Grey, C. F.
Moody, A. S.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Morley, R.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Thurtle, Ernest


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Timmons, J.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mort, D. L.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Moyle, A.
Tomney, F.


Hamilton, W. W.
Mulley, F. W.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hannan, W.
Nally, W.
Viant, S. P.


Hardy, E. A.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Watkins, T. E.


Hargreaves, A.
O'Brien, T.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Oliver, G. H.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hastings, S.
O'Neill, M. (Mid-Ulster)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Hayman, F. H.
Orbach, M.
West, D. G.


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Oswald, T.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Padley, W. E.
While, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Herbison, Miss M.
Paget, R. T.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hobson, C. R.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Holman, P.
Pannell, Charles
Wilkins, W. A.


Houghton, Douglas
Pargiter, G. A.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Hoy, J. H.
Parker, J.
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Hubbard, T. F.
Paton, J.
Williams, David (Neath)


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Pearson, A.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Peart, T. F.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Hynd, H, (Accrington)
Popplewell, E.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Porter, G.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Proctor, W. T.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pryde, D. J.
Wyatt, W. L.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Yates, V. F.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Rankin, John



Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Reeves, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Mr. Holmes and Mr. Wigg.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Reid, William (Camlachie)

Mr. Dryden Brook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On a previous occasion when an incident such as this happened, in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) was involved, your predecessor allowed the Division to count, but called upon the name of my right hon. Friend to be expunged from the record, and also demanded that he appear at the Table

and apologise for his action. I would like to ask for your Ruling on this similar incident, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: I remember the incident to which the hon. Member has referred quite clearly, but I think that this one was different. It was reported to me that there had been an irregularity in that certain hon. Members had forced their


way into the Lobby after the attendants were ordered to lock the doors. I was unable to determine how that had happened, and in the circumstances I judged that the only course open to me was to declare the Division invalid and to have a new one.

Mr. Brook: My memory of the incident which I have related is that it was exactly similar to the incident today. The name of my right hon. Friend was obtained from the attendant at the door through which he passed. The same circumstances have occurred today, and I ask that you take into consideration the Ruling of your predecessor.

Mr. Woodburn: Further to that point of order. I personally witnessed a good deal of violent jostling, in which it was clear that the attendant was in danger of being injured. I saw one hon. Member who weighs at least 16 stone being thrown back some yards. That could not have happened in any ordinary decorous procedure in the Lobby. I think, therefore, with respect, that it would be desirable that you should at least inquire into the facts and deal with them when you find them.

Mr. Speaker: I have every intention of inquiring into the facts. I certainly will do so. But at the moment when my attention was drawn to the matter I had no option but to act as I did. In answer to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. D. Brook), I would say that I well remember the incident to which he has referred, when the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) was involved. On that occasion the point was raised in the course of the Division. It was a point of order, and the right hon. Gentleman was named by the hon. Member who brought the incident to the notice of Mr. Speaker. On this occasion I had no such particularity afforded to me. All I had was a report of an irregularity. I shall certainly inquire into the matter and make sure that if there has been any roughness towards the attendant the hon. Members responsible for it incur my severe displeasure and that of the House.

Mr. R. R. Stokes: On a point of clarity, Sir. May I say there was no roughness in my case? It was complete inadvertence. The door was half open, I pushed through the door, and, unfortunately, the attendant fell over.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Further to the point of order. I do not know how definitive your Ruling is, Mr. Speaker, but with great respect I would suggest that the proper course in a case of this kind is to institute an inquiry and if, as a result, it is found that some hon. Members have pushed their way into the Division Lobby quite wrongly, then, at that stage, their names should be expunged from the Division. The proper course, I suggest with great respect, is not to order another Division, the only result is that the hon. Members who pushed their way into the Lobby are counted and those who were excluded are counted.
On this occasion it was brought to your notice while the Division was in progress not only that some hon. Members had succeeded in pushing their way into the Lobby, but that some hon. Members had been successfully excluded from the Lobby. The result now is that those who were excluded are counted in the Division. I suggest, therefore, with respect, that the proper course was the course followed by Mr. Speaker on the previous occasion.

Mr. Speaker: The incidents were quite different. If the hon. and learned Member wishes to criticise my Ruling, he must do it in the regular way.

An Hon. Member: Cheeky man.

Mr. Porter: rose—

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: On a point of order—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must have one point of order at a time. Mr. Porter.

Hon. Members: Give way.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I heard an hon. Member opposite refer to me as a "cheeky man." I ask you, Sir, that he be ordered to withdraw that remark, for this reason: that it is the right of hon. Members of the House—and their duty—to raise matters of this kind in order to have the position fully and adequately disposed of to the satisfaction of everyone.

Mr. Speaker: Although I do not approve of the epithet, there is nothing un-Parliamentary about it.

Mr. Porter: With regard to the matter which I was responsible for raising, I wish to put it on record that I took the earliest available opportunity of calling your attention, Sir, not to what I thought was an irregularity with regard to the voting in the Division, but—I thought it was my duty as a Member of this House—to an assault made on one of the attendants. Therefore, whatever action is taken on the question of the voting, or the Division taken in its place, I shall be satisfied if the inquiry I want is made in regard to the assault on the attendant.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member. The House has ordered the Question to be put—

Mr. H. Hynd: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: I must put the Question. The hon. Member can put his point of order later.

Question put accordingly.

The House divided: Ayes, 287; Noes, 257.

Division No. 80.]
AYES
[6.55 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Alport, C. J. M.
Davidson, Viscountess
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Deedes, W. F.
Hurd, A. R.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Arbuthnot, John
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Assheton, Rt, Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Donner, P. W.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)


Baker, P. A. D.
Duthie, W. S.
Jennings, R.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Baldwin, A. E.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Banks, Col. C.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Barber, A. P. L.
Erroll, F. J.
Kaberry, D.


Baxter, A. B.
Fell, A.
Keeling, Sir Edward


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Finlay, Graeme
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Fisher, Nigel
Lambert, Hon. G.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lambton, Viscount


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Fort, R.
Leather, E. H. C.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Foster, John
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Gage, C. H.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Birch, Nigel
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Lindsay, Martin


Bishop, F. P.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Linstead, H. N.


Black, C. W.
Gammans, L. D.
Llewellyn, D. T.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Bossom, A. C.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Bowen, E. R.
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Godber, J. B.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Low, A. R. W.


Braine, B. R.
Gough, C. F. H.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Gower, H. R.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Grimond, J.
McAdden, S. J.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
McCallum, Major D.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Bullard, D. G.
Harden, J. R. E.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Burden, F. F. A.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maclean, Fitzroy


Butcher, H. W.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
MacLeod, John (Rose and Cromarly)


Carson, Hon. E.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hay, John
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)


Channon, H.
Heald, Sir Lionel
Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Heath, Edward
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Markham, Major S. F.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W)
Higgs, J. M. C.
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Cole, Norman
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Marples, A. E.


Colegate, W. A.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Maude, Angus


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Maudling, R.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hollis, M. C.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hope, Lord John
Mellor, Sir John


Crouch, R. F.
Hopkinson, Henry
Molson, A. H. E.


Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Crowder, Petra (Ruislip—Northwood)
Horobin, I. M.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)




Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Robson-Brown, W.
Teeling, W.


Nicholls, Harmar
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Roper, Sir Harold
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Russell, R. S.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr R. (Croydon, W.)


Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Nugent, G. R. H.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Nutting, Anthony
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Tilney, John


Oakshott, H. D.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Touche, G. C.


Odey, G. W.
Scott, R. Donald
Turner, H. F. L.


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Turton, R. H.


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Shepherd, William
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Vane, W. M. F.


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Vosper, D. F.


Osborne, C.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Partridge, E.
Snaddan, W. McN.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Soames, Capt. C.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Perkins, W. R. D.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Speir, R. M.
Watkinson, H. A.


Peyton, J. W. W.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Wellwood, W.


Pitman, I. J.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Powell, J. Enoch
Stevens, G. P.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Profumo, J. D.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Raikes, H. V.
Storey, S.
Wills, G.


Rayner, Brig. R.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Redmayne, E.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Wood, Hon. R.


Remnant, Hon. P.
Studholme, H. G.



Renton, D. L. M.
Summers, G. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Sutcliffe, H.
Mr. Drewe and Major Conant.


Robertson, Sir David
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)


Adams, Richard
Cove, W. G.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Albu, A. H.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Crosland, C. A. R.
Hamilton, W. W.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Crossman, R. H. S.
Hardy, E. A.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hargreaves, A.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hastings, S.


Awbery, S. S.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Hayman, F. H.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)


Baird, J.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A (Rowley Regis)


Balfour, A.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Herbison, Miss M.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Deer, G.
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Bence, C. R.
Delargy, H. J.
Hobson, C. R.


Benn, Wedgwood
Donnelly, D. L.
Holman, P.


Benson, G.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)


Beswick, F.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Hoy, J. H.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hubbard, T. F.


Bing, G. H. C.
Edelman, M.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)


Blackburn, F.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Blenkinsop, A.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Blyton, W. R.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Boardman, H.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Bowden, H. W.
Ewart, R.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Bowles, F. G.
Fernyhough, E.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Field, W. J.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Brockway, A. F.
Fienburgh, W.
Jeger, George (Goole)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Finch, H. J.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Fonick, M.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Foot, M. M.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Burke, W. A.
Forman, J. C.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Callaghan, L. J.
Gibson, C. W.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Carmichael, J.
Glanville, James
Keenan, W.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Gooch, E. G.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Champion, A. J.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
King, Dr. H. M.


Chapman, W. D.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Clunie, J.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Cocks, F. S.
Grey, C. F.
Lewis, Arthur


Coldrick, W.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Collick, P. H.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Logan, D. G.


Cook, T. F.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
MacColl, J. E.







McGhee, H. G.
Peart, T. F.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


McInnes, J.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Popplewell, E.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


McLeavy, F.
Porter, G.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Proctor, W. T.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Pryde, D. J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Thurtle, Ernest


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rankin, John
Timmons, J.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Reeves, J.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Tomney, F.


Manuel, A. C.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Rhodes, H.
Viant, S. P.


Mayhew, C. P.
Richards, R.
Watkins, T. E.


Mellish, R. J.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C)


Messer, F.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Mikardo, Ian
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Mitchison, G. R.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
West, D. G.


Monslow, W.
Ross, William
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Moody, A. S.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Morley, R.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Short, E. W.
Wigg, George


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Mort, D. L.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Wilkins, W. A.


Moyle, A.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Mulley, F. W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Nally, W.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Williams, David (Neath)


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Snow, J. W.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


O'Brien, T.
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Oliver, G. H.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Williams, W. R. (Droyleden)


Oswald, T.
Sparks, J. A.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Padley, W. E.
Steele, T.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Paget, N. T.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Demme Valley)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Wyatt, W. L.


Pannell, Charles
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Yates, V. F.


Pargiter, G. A.
Stross, Dr. Barnett



Parker, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Paton, J.
Swingler, S. T.
Mr. Hannan and Mr. Royle.


Pearson, A.
Sylvester, G. O.



Main Question put accordingly, and agreed to.

Main Question again proposed.

Mr. Adams: Now that we have disposed of the Amendment—

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Main Question be now put."

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The main Question has been claimed.

Mr. Adams: On a point of order. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that you, having put that Question to the House, decided that further debate was necessary and, therefore, you called me when I stood on my feet. I had just made a start upon my contribution to this debate when the Chief Whip interrupted in a way that I have never seen before in this House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has got the sequence of events wrong. I called the hon. Member to speak, but, a moment or two after he had started to speak, the main Question was claimed by the Patronage Secretary, and I accepted it. [Interruption.] Order. I must put the Question.

Mr. M. Stewart: On a point of order. May I ask your guidance on this matter, Mr. Speaker? Many of us, who cannot claim the wide and specialised knowledge of Standing Orders that belongs to some hon. Members, believed it to be the practice of the Chair to grant the Closure Motion if, in the opinion of the Chair, the matter under consideration has been sufficiently discussed.
You called my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Adams), and I took it that, in calling him, it was in your mind that there was still something which you believed he could usefully add to our consideration of this question. At that time, therefore, I think it is doubtful whether you could have thought that the matter had been sufficiently discussed, but about half a minute later, the Closure was moved.
Are we to understand that my hon. Friend, in the course of 30 seconds, had added all that could be added to the consideration of this matter? My hon. Friend has a gift for pithy and pregnant utterance, but I cannot think that, if you were of the opinion before he rose that the matter had not been fully discussed—and if you were not of that opinion, you


would not have called him—30 seconds later, you were—apparently—of the opinion that the matter had been sufficiently discussed, by your acceptance of the Motion for the Closure. Will you please explain that, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I will explain it. When there is a Question before the House, and an hon. Member rises to address the House, I must call him, unless there is a Motion before me "That the Question be now put." There being no Motion before me claiming the main Question, when the hon. Member rose, I called him, and, when he had been speaking for a while—I do not know the exact period, but it was not long—the main Question was claimed, I have accepted it, and now I must put it. It is not a question whether I think the hon. Member has something to contribute to the debate or not; that has nothing to do with me. The main Question has been claimed, I have accepted the Motion, and now I must put the Question.

The Question is, "That this House, at its rising To-morrow, do adjourn till Monday, 21st April."

Mr. Paget: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?

Mr. Paget: You have not collected the voices on the Closure Motion, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at Standing Order 29, he will find that it is all arranged for there.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising To-morrow, do adjourn till Monday, 21st April.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 8th April].

[Sir AUSTIN HUDSON In the Chair]

Clause 1.—(CHARGES FOR CERTAIN DRUGS, MEDICINES AND APPLIANCES.)

7.14 p.m.

The Temporary Chairman: Before calling the first Amendment, I think I ought to say that I understand it has been agreed to take the first three Amendments, all to page 1, line 9, together, as they all deal with the same subject, although in regard to slightly different circumstances. If necessary, and if it is desired, there can be three Divisions after the debate.

Dr. Barnett Stross: On a point of order. I wish to speak to the two Amendments standing in my name, but, as I see it, there is a great difference between the first two and the third, because, whereas the third is quite radical in its approach towards the problem fiscally, the first and second are really seeking for information and dealing with certain classes of people. With respect, Sir Austin, I wonder whether we might discuss the first two together and take the third one subsequently?

The Temporary Chairman: That is quite agreeable to the Chair.

Dr. Stross: I am very grateful to you, Sir.
I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, at the end, to insert:
(2) No medical practitioner shall be required to make or recover any charge under this section.
I find myself, at the beginning, asking for your guidance and toleration, Sir Austin, with reference to the scope of the first two Amendments. You will remember that when the Minister was considering the subject-matter of this Amendment in his Second Reading speech, he made a statement on the matter. He said:
As a matter of fact, we are in some difficulty over this whole matter, upon a procedural matter. I know that hon. Members will be wanting to discuss many implications of the proposed charge on doctors' prescriptions, which is to make up most of the charge


with which we are dealing. The Bill does not deal with that at all, but I hope that sufficient latitude may be given by the Chair for that ground to be covered."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 27th March, 1952; Vol. 498, c. 847.]
I am, therefore, asking for your indulgence and ruling that it may be possible to make a reference, not only to the hospital and specialist services and the clinics, but to a similar situation which occurs in the countryside. If that be agreed, and that is what we have understood throughout all our deliberations, which have included this type of latitude, I shall try to be as brief as I can and stray not for a moment outside the terms of reference.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order. Surely, the fact that, on Second Reading, it was possible to refer to Regulations to be made under the Socialist Government's Act, 1949, does not enable this Committee, upon specific Amendments and specific Clauses, to range over that matter?

The Temporary Chairman: The Amendments deal with medical practitioners and chemists who are recovering the charge, and hon. Members must not go beyond that or something that is relevant to it, but I think I must wait until the hon. Member has proceeded a little further.

Mr. Powell: Further to that point of order. With respect, Sir Austin, it relates to this matter only in respect of the subject-matter of Clause 1, which is the hospital service, and not at all to general practitioners.

Dr. Stross: The words "medical practitioners" having been accepted, I hope that we shall not be out of order, particularly as I have said that the whole intention and spirit of all our discussions has been not to gag hon. Members, but to allow them time and some degree of latitude, because of the very fact that some powers arise from the 1949 Act.
That being now clear, may I say that in regard to the charges in the narrow field of the hospital and specialist services, with which I should like to deal first, we are concerned in this respect with the charges to be made to out-patients in the out-patients departments of hospitals? I feel that there is some difficulty, and we would like to indicate to the Parliamentary Secretary the sort of question which

we want her to answer, either now or later on.
We assume that the charges will be paid at the hospital dispensary if such a dispensary exists, and that if drugs and medicines or surgical apparatus are supplied they will be paid for on the spot to whoever is supplying them. If drugs or medicines are not supplied by the hospital dispensary it will mean that an outside chemist or person will supply them. In that case, we assume, as was discussed earlier, that neither drugs nor medicine are made up in the hospital outpatients' department, but that the patient will take the prescription and have it made up outside.
I do not think there would be any technical difficulty or confusion regarding this aspect of the Service. I can see how it will be quite easy to say that there is a charge of 1s. and that certain exempted classes can get the 1s. refunded. Assuming that I am right and that there will be no technical difficulty in collecting the money, we come now to the difficulty with which we are faced regarding clinics. Earlier on we had a speech by the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Colonel Stoddart-Scott), who is very experienced in the field of medicine on which he touched. He is a venereologist of great standing and repute. He pointed out the difficulties that might well arise if these charges were imposed at the clinics.
At these clinics personal attention is given and secrecy is maintained as far as possible. There the consultant personally treats the patient and as few contacts as possible are made between the patient and any other person. I am very sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon is not present, because he said that he would be here to support me on this Amendment. We should like to know whether a charge is to be made at these clinics, or whether they come within the exempted class. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will make a note that this particular class of clinics should be exempted.
We do not want to go back and begin to charge for a treatment which has been given free for many years. Nor do we want at this particular stage to place a financial barrier between those whom we want to cure as quickly as possible of distressing ailments of this kind and their proper treatment. Another point that


arises in connection with this matter is, how often are we to charge these people and for what? Normally injections are given, sometimes at infrequent intervals, though not, perhaps, over such a long period of time today as in the past, when in some cases the treatment was spread over several years. Cures can be effected much more quickly today than they could 10 or 15 years ago.
But, even so, does it mean that every time a man attends for treatment—sometimes he has two different drugs injected into him and may also be given some drug to take by mouth—he will be asked to pay the charge? I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me that in this matter her right hon. Friend might easily exempt this class of treatment from the charge. People undergoing such treatment do not normally get bottles of medicine or surgical appliances, so that here we are only dealing with the personal service given by the specialist to the patient.
Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would like to have an assurance, not necessarily now but a little later on, that this type of clinic will be exempted from the charge. As hon. Members know, these clinics are not always isolated units. Very often, in order to avoid embarrassment, they are frequently attached to the great general hospitals, although they are always called special clinics because they only treat a particular condition. Therefore, there can be no problem for the Service generally in exempting them from the charges if the right hon. Gentleman so wishes, and we strongly urge him to do that.
Going back to the words "medical practitioner," on 27th March the Minister said:
I will say what is generally proposed; we are still having conversations with doctors and chemists about the difficulties arising, particularly in rural areas. The proposals are that persons having prescriptions made up by chemists must pay not more than 1s. Persons who get their medicine from dispensing doctors pay 1s. when the medicine is dispensed.
At first sight, there does not seem to be any problem about it, but I would point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that the Service is going to find itself in real difficulty, and that very much more thought must be given to the matter than has apparently so far been given.
I will mention some of the difficulties I foresee and which will, no doubt, be mentioned by other hon. Members. If we accept the Minister's words, it means, first of all, that patients in urban areas can be given prescription form E.C. 110 which may contain many items for different medicines and drugs for long periods at a time. The Minister told us quite frankly, and he also told the medical profession, that he is not going to interfere with the way in which medical practitioners prescribe. He has said that it is not for him to tell the doctors their business or how to conduct it. I think it must be accepted that in future heed will be taken of the fact that charges for prescriptions are being made with the effect that larger quantities will be prescribed than heretofore, especially in chronic cases. That will obviously happen in all urban areas.
In rural areas there are 4,000 dispensing doctors. As regards those areas the Minister said:
Persons who get their medicine from dispensing doctors pay 1s. when the medicine is dispensed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March. 1952; Vol. 498, c. 848.]
In these areas there are doctors who, like chemists, dispense by tariff and those who dispense by capitation. Those who dispense by tariff are obviously in no difficulty because they can dispense what they feel is necessary, charge the 1s. and then be surcharged and made to account for it. But where the capitation fee is used, the Minister and the Service will find themselves in trouble in this way. The doctor there makes up the medicines. It is because they think—

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Iain MacLeod: On a point of order. May I draw attention to the fact that this Clause to which this Amendment is proposed affects only the hospital and specialist services in the outpatient departments? Whatever may be in order on Second Reading, it is surely entirely out of order to discuss on a very narrow Amendment all the problems which affect rural doctors throughout the country and are entirely unrelated not only to this Clause but to this Bill.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: Further to that point. The Committee are put in a real difficulty here because, clearly, if it is intended to exclude medical practitioners from having


to collect charges—which I understand is the intention in the clinic or the hospital—then it is impossible to discuss that except in relation to his brother doctor outside in a rural or other practice. I agree it would be quite wrong to discuss this at any length, but surely it is impossible to consider the position without reference to it.

The Temporary Chairman: I find some difficulty in ruling it out of order because we are now dealing with the whole question of the doctor having to collect the prescription charge. Perhaps we may have the benefit of the opinion of the Parliamentary Secretary.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): The Clause to which this Amendment refers deals solely with the charges in the out-patient departments of hospitals. It does not deal with the wider issue covered by the previous Act.

Mr. MacLeod: It will be seen from line 9 that we are dealing only with Part II of the principal Act. Everything that has been said in relation to the rural doctor, and everything that has been said in the last few minutes by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), relates to Part IV of the principal Act and the pharmaceutical and medical services provided thereunder. It cannot have anything to do with this Clause.

Dr. A. D. D. Broughton: Further to that point of order. Clause 1 (1) of this Bill refers to
… the making and recovery, in such manner as may be prescribed, of such charges as may be prescribed in respect of the supply, as part of the hospital and specialist services … of drugs, medicines or appliances.
We are most desirous of having this Amendment accepted so that medical practitioners in hospitals and in specialist services will be protected against having to make the charges or recover the money from the patients. I suggest therefore—and we feel very strongly about this—that we are discussing a matter of principle, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) was giving illustrations from what occurs in rural practices.

The Temporary Chairman: I did not realise just now that the Clause was so restricted. If the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, confines himself to

making a passing reference to medical practitioners, then we can continue to keep in order and I shall be very grateful to him.

Mr. Frederick Messer: Further to that point of order. There is something more to be said on this subject. It must not be assumed that a general practitioner cannot be a specialist and be attached to a hospital, and consequently it is quite possible that, although he is acting as general practitioner, he is also doing work of a specialist character for a hospital, and it might very well be that he might prescribe at somewhere other than at the hospital. We want to know whether in a case of that description, and if the Amendment were carried, he would not make a charge. I suggest that hon. Members opposite are taking too narrow a view. Whilst it is quite true this Clause deals with hospital and specialist services, that does not rule out the fact that a general practitioner may be attached to those services.

The Temporary Chairman: I ask the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, to confine himself as far as possible to hospital services. We do not want to range too far.

Dr. Stross: I am grateful both to you, Sir Austen, and to the hon. Members who have brought this matter forward. It was obvious to me that there was a difficulty. I did not attempt to conceal it, and I put it to the Chair. I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary in her own personal opinion took a narrower view of this Clause than did her right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, who pleaded on Second Reading that we must go wider to get any commonsense out of it. Had we not done so we would have stultified our considerations. We cannot consider these things in fragments as if they were not joined to one another and were not part of the whole.
I will come back to the hospital services, since I appear to have strayed too far into the rural areas. Before I was interrupted, I was saying that it was apparent that the Minister is bound to be faced with difficulties because some people will be dispensing by tariff and some by capitation. Those dispensing by tariff will find it easier to collect and charge than those dispensing by capitation. This has been well understood by


the profession as a whole. Quite frankly, I am bringing it forward because it is commonly understood and because I am sure the Minister has been having considerable discussions on the point.
We all hope he will solve the problem, though I feel he will have great difficulty because it is so complex. Confusion will be worse confounded in those areas where there are medical practitioners working part-time in hospital and part-time in practice, and particularly where one general practitioner dispenses by tariff and his neighbour dispenses by capitation. The confusion for the patient will be really dreadful. Those who are dispensing by capitation are complaining today that they are making a loss and will continue to make a loss.
But I plead the case from the point of view of the individual citizen. Is it not a fact that he will receive better value from those dispensing by tariff than from those dispensing by capitation? If the Parliamentary Secretary does not feel that she can make any promise now perhaps she will say that she will bring the matter before the Minister and perhaps at a later stage we shall hear the view of the Government after consultations have taken place.
We have seen a good deal in the medical Press about what is likely to happen. Outside, in the rural areas, it is not only medicine that is prescribed but also elastic hosiery in many cases. What is found particularly objectionable is the degradation of the status—whether in the hospital, in the clinic or in the countryside—of the practitioner himself and the spoiling of the relationship between him and the patient.
It may be the Parliamentary Secretary believes medical men are exaggerating when they complain on this issue, but I think she knows that the majority of them do so complain, officially through their representatives and unofficially. They have used the word "degradation" and that is why I have used it. I should like to quote from a letter in the "British Medical Journal" from a practitioner which I think will help the Committee to realise how medical men feel about this. It states:
Apart from these considerations, in my opinion by far the most important aspect is

the degrading and lowering effect it will have on the status of dispensing doctors. Most of us dispense for our patients because of our isolated situations, not because we want to. If we now have to collect a shilling at each consultation, find change, rattle cash-boxes and haggle over payment, each time becomes a sordid commercial transaction. I hope the B.M.A. will energetically resist this imposition in accodance with the resolution passed by the Annual Conference of Local Medical Committees.
That was from the British Medical Journal of 23rd February.
Now let me read only two or three lines from the editorial in the "British Medical Journal" of 9th February:
The method proposed to collect this money will have the effect of turning dispensing doctors into tax collectors. The onus is put on the dispensing doctor of obtaining the shilling from the patient, for his remuneration will have a sum of money deducted from it in accordance with his prescribing. Therefore if he fails to extract his shilling—or a larger sum for elastic hosiery—he may be by that much out of pocket.
Another organisation, the Medical Practitioners' Union which put the matter very fairly if rather strongly, said this:
It is the rural practitioner who will have the difficult time. Used to dispensing his own medicines, leaving them at bus stops, and by a hundred different manoeuvres arranging for their collection, he is now to become a tax-collector if the Chancellor has his way.
It is interesting that it is the Chancellor who is blamed and not the Minister, and I personally think that is right. They go on to say:
He must contrive to extricate the odd shilling from patients, relatives and messengers who will wrongly conclude that the charge will enrich the doctor.
This is a thing that practitioners are anxious about, and there should be no misunderstanding about it:
Even if there were no special difficulties of collection it would still impose an odious job upon him for which he would be quite unrewarded. He will in addition be required to give thousands of receipts in the case of hardship—free of charge. We feel strongly that rural doctors should refuse to under take this invidious task.
The Chair has been most kind in allowing me to develop this argument, and I am grateful to the Committee as a whole for allowing me to put the case in this way. Everyone knows that I have not attempted to do other than state the facts, give information, and ask for information. After all, this is a very serious matter, and we are none the worse for putting forward different points of view.
The next Amendment, which we are also now discussing, seeks to add the words:
No chemist shall be required to determine the amount of any charge under this section.
The chemists and pharmacists feel very strongly that they should not be dragged in as agents for the collection of money in this way, and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that we should respect their wishes in this matter. I know their reasons. They feel that their duty is to dispense, and that the amount of clerical work involved would almost surely face us with a request for increased remuneration or for extra clerical assistance. Above all, they do not want to be faced with the antagonism of medical men, or of the public who come to their shop counters for service. They fear that there may be some antagonism between themselves and the local doctor or doctors, either in the hospital or outside, if they have to determine what the charge shall be and the patient ultimately complains.
7.45 p.m.
I have already made my position clear in our earlier debates. I see that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland smiles and appears to disagree. I am prepared to give way to him now if there is anything he wants to contribute. If a patient is given a prescription and thinks it is not to the full value of 1s., he might quite well ask the chemist how much it is worth and whether he can pay cash for it. The patient may later complain to the prescribing doctor that the prescription was worth less than 1s., and there may be difficulties between patient and doctor or doctor and patient. That is what the chemists want to avoid. But that is only part of their difficulty. They say they have enough to do finding the things to make up the doctors' prescriptions. They have a very special relationship with their patients.
Everybody knows, especially where a chemist is situated near an industrial undertaking, that very often minor casualties are taken to the chemist first, perhaps because the doctor is out on his rounds. They do a tremendous amount of advising and treatment. That applies to an even greater extent in holiday resorts, when people get stings, abrasions and cuts, and are treated for them, or

advised about indigestion, and so on. The chemists do not want to be brought into this to act in any specific way, major or minor, in the asking of money from the public or in determining the amount to be paid. Again, the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland seems to find this vastly amusing.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): I do not want to encourage the hon. Gentleman to continue his argument, which we have heard repeated time and time again during the course of this Bill. What makes me laugh is wondering how on earth he thinks the chemists ever got on before. His argument seems to me to be quite ridiculous. I suppose the chemist has never at any time in history asked for money for the drugs he prescribes? The hon. Gentleman is putting forward a most extraordinary theory.

Dr. Stross: I have never heard anything so myopic and so failing in understanding. The hon. and gallant Gentleman belongs to a party which is interested in private enterprise. Surely he understands there is a difference between asking for money for oneself and asking for it on behalf of somebody else and handing it over. Earlier, when I wondered whether he had heard my argument before, I gave him the opportunity of intervening, but he did not do so. It is quite apparent that he has not yet understood the argument and does not understand any of the implications. But he will learn; the pharmacists will ultimately teach him.

Mr. Blenkinsop: It ought to be pointed out that the pharmacists have been pressing this point for a long time. They have urged very strongly that, if there were to be any question of the collection of money, they would reserve the right to ask for some increase in their remuneration in order to cover their extra expenses, quite apart from the broader issues my hon. Friend raises.

Dr. Stross: I think we can leave it at that. The education of the Joint Under-Secretary we can leave to the pharmacists, who are a very able body of experienced craftsmen and professional men, who know what they are talking about.

Dr. Broughton: I have had the opportunity of making several speeches in the


course of the proceedings on this Bill. So far I have been doing my utmost to try to protect the patient from the hurt and the harm which I believe this Bill will inflict upon him or her. In this Amendment, however, I turn my attention to trying to protect the doctors. As I said a few moments ago, when I intervened on a point of order, I feel very deeply about this matter.
Before the war I was one of a small band of medical practitioners who advocated a national health service, and I reflect with pride upon the pioneer work of those days. I wanted a national health service for a large number of reasons. I will not weary the Committee by enumerating all of them, but I should like to mention the first three on the list. The first one was that I thought a national health service would be in accordance with humanitarian principles. I wanted medical attention to be available for all people in need of it, irrespective of their financial means.
The second reason could be described as having a utilitarian purpose. I believed it would profit our country to have a healthier population. The third reason was that having a national health service would enable us to raise the status and the dignity of the medical profession. I wanted to see the doctor divorced from trade. I wanted him to be able to devote the whole of his time and energy to the care of his patients.
When we look back in history I think it will be agreed that some centuries ago the doctor was little better than a pill pedlar; but the profession has always attracted distinguished members who, by their work and their fine example, have lifted the profession to its present honourable position.
I believe that the medical practitioner should be given adequate remuneration to allow him to employ his full concentration upon his professional work. This collecting of shillings by the medical practitioner, whether in hospital or in rural areas, will be an interference with his work, and it is a most degrading imposition. It means that the doctor cannot hand over the bottle of medicine to the old age pensioner, to the child or to the sick person urgently in need of it, until he has extracted from the patient one shilling.

Commander T. D. Galbraith: Nonsense.

Dr. Broughton: The hon. and gallant Members says "Nonsense." If the doctor gives a bottle of medicine without receiving 1s. he suffers financially.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): The doctors are not concerned with this.

Dr. Broughton: I am sorry the Minister should intervene and say that the doctors are not concerned with this. This concerns the doctors very much indeed. The Minister has had to be absent from our deliberations for some time and he does not realise just what my hon. Friend and I are trying to do. We are trying to protect the doctors from having to levy charges upon the patients before they have their drugs and medicines. I think I have every right to speak on that matter and to try to persuade the right hon. Gentleman to accept our Amendment.
The effect of this imposition which he puts upon the doctors is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can trespass into the sanctity of the consulting room, disrupting the confidential and delicate relationship between the doctor and the patient. I see that the right hon. Gentleman is laughing. I do not think that this is a laughing matter.

Mr. Crookshank: It is not a laughing matter, but it does not seem to have any relevance. I apologise for having just come into the Committee, but what the hon. Member is saying does not seem to have any relevance to this Clause. This has nothing to do with doctors' charges; this refers to hospitals.

Dr. Broughton: As I said a moment ago, I regret that it was necessary for the Minister to be absent from our deliberations for a while; but you will remember, Sir Austin, that this question was put to you a short time ago, and you gave your Ruling that it was in order, because there is nothing in this Bill to prevent the Minister, by means of Regulations, insisting that the doctors who are working in hospitals as resident medical officers or as specialists, full-time or part-time, should make and recover charges for drugs and medicines.
As I said to the Minister as soon as he came into the Chamber, what we are


trying to do is to protect the medical practitioner from such an imposition. It would be a serious, retrograde step. It is a step that would be disliked by patients and detested by doctors. I regard it as an insult to an honourable profession. It means that the doctor would be forced into employment as a part-time, unpaid, unwilling tax collector.

Mr. Crookshank: On a point of order. I am sorry, but if the hon. Member will read the fourth line, Clause 1 (1) it talks about
the supply, as part of the hospital and specialist services under Part II of the principal Act ….
and that has nothing to do with doctors having to give prescriptions and collect the charges, which is what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.

Mr. Messer: Further to that point of order. I am really surprised that the Minister should make a statement of that description. In some hospitals there will be no other machinery, unless special machinery is set up for the purpose. One can have an out-patient department of a hospital which is prescribing, where it is necessary for the doctor not merely to say that the prescription costs 1s. but to take the shilling. This Amendment seeks to prevent that sort of thing happening.

The Temporary Chairman: I think I should say a word about the point of order. As I understand it, the Amendment is in order; but if the Minister, in his reply, says that in no circumstances under this Clause could a medical practitioner or a chemist possibly be asked to do this work, it would probably close the debate on this matter. But as far as the Chair is concerned nothing has been said which is out of order.

Dr. Broughton: I think you went a little further in your Ruling, Sir Austin, and said that not only was this Amendment in order but that for the purpose of illustration we could refer briefly to the matter of the imposition which is liable to be placed upon medical practitioners in rural areas. I most certainly respect your Ruling, as I do all Rulings from the Chair. I should like to refer to the serious problem of this imposition on rural doctors, but I shall respect your wishes and refer to it only very briefly.
8.0 p.m.
Would the Minister be good enough, when he comes to reply, to let us know whether it is correct that there has been a very strong protest from the dispensing doctors? I understand that there are between 4,000 and 5,000 doctors who dispense for their patients, that they have protested about this imposition and that they are backed by all their professional colleagues.
Perhaps the Minister, who seems so agitated about all this, would stand up at the Box now and tell us that he will accept this Amendment; then we shall know that the medical profession is protected against this imposition, and I will sit down. If he will do that, I suggest that we shall have made some progress. Apparently the Minister does not accept my invitation, and I am very sorry that he does not.

Mr. Crookshank: I rise to make the same point as I made before. The hon. Gentleman keeps confusing this with questions which arise under the original Act with regard to prescriptions given by general practitioners under that Act, which has nothing to do with this Clause whatsoever. This has to do with hospital services and has nothing to do with rural practitioners.

The Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): Perhaps there has been an error in calling this Amendment.

Mr. John Baird: If there has been a mistake in calling this Amendment, Sir Charles, you may have made a mistake in refusing to call other Amendments as well. Will you reconsider your whole argument?

The Chairman: I resent that remark it is an improper thing to say.

Dr. Broughton: We had a discussion with the Chair on this matter during your absence, Sir Charles, and it was suggested that you had been perfectly right in suggesting to the then Chairman that this Amendment should be called. I rose on a point of order and explained that Clause 1 (1) is for the purpose of making regulations to provide for the making and recovery
of such charges as may be prescribed in respect of the supply, as part of the hospital and specialist services … of drugs, medicines or appliances.


There is nothing new. I am sorry that the Minister was away and that I am having to repeat all this again, but there is nothing to prevent the Minister from laying down regulations insisting that doctors employed in hospitals, whether it be as resident medical officers or as specialists, full-time or part-time, should not be compelled to make and recover charges for drugs and medicines.
My hon. Friends and I want to protect the members of the medical profession against such an imposition. While the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Sir A. Hudson) was in the Chair, he went a little further and stated that for the purpose of illustration we might refer very briefly to the matter of the collection of the shillings by rural practitioners because it was included in the same principle. If the Minister had been in the Chamber at the start of my speech, he would have realised that I am arguing on a matter of principle. I think that it is wrong that doctors should be used as tax collectors whether they are employed in a hospital or whether they are employed in general practice in rural areas.
After that long interruption, may I return to my theme? I have been very disappointed in a large number of ways in the course of our proceedings on this Bill. First, I am extremely disappointed that the Government have not been able to accept a single one of our Amendments. Second, I am disappointed to realise what right hon. and hon. Members sitting on the Tory benches think about the medical profession. They think very little of the medical profession, as they have shown in the course of our debates.
On the second Reading of the Bill, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) made an allegation against the general practitioners, saying that they were shirking their work and pushing patients into hospital unnecessarily.

Mr. Powell: I would point out that on the Second Reading I made no such allegation. I quoted from the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates of this House, which is a matter of record.

Dr. Broughton: I am quite aware that the hon. Member quoted from the Report, but he quoted from it in order to use it in support of his argument that

the charge of 1s. should be imposed upon patients attending the out-patients' departments of hospitals. On the Second Reading, the Minister, as I told him yesterday, insulted the specialists by mentioning the alleged abuse of surgical appliances.
If we have a reply from the Minister, as I hope we shall, I should not regard it as satisfactory if we were merely told that there are discussions going on at the present time between representatives of the medical profession and the Minister as to whether doctors should have this imposition put upon them of being made tax collectors. If the Minister has nothing to say other than that there are discussions taking place at the present time, then I know the purpose of those discussions. They are to persuade, to threaten and to bully the medical profession into having to collect the shillings.
If this Amendment cannot be accepted, I think that it would be far better if, instead of the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary answering, they would send to the Ministry of Food for the Parliamentary Secretary to come and answer this question. It would be most interesting for him to stand up at that Box and say that this Amendment is unacceptable. Let him tell the House and the country that he and his political colleagues will not accept this Amendment, and by it suppress the honourable aspirations of the medical profession.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I feel that the Minister, in spite of his laughter, should he able to accept this Amendment, because it is in one sense, as he rightly says, a narrow one which it should not be at all difficult to incorporate in the Bill. It is true that in so far as it deals purely with hospital specialist services it should not be difficult for him to say that he has no intention of using medical practitioners for the collection of charges from hospitals, out-patients, pharmacists and the rest.
Therefore, there should be no great difficulty from his point of view in including these words in the provisions of the Bill. What he has rather failed to understand—I should have thought that he would have know it from the representations which have been made—is that the profession regard it as a matter of very real principle, whether it applies in the hospital service or elsewhere.
Indeed, I remember that the Labour Government wrote into the Health Service many provisions in order to meet that kind of representation. The medical profession were anxious to have written into the Bill various provisos and safeguards which we said we intended to provide under regulations, but they quite properly said that they wanted to see them written into the Bill.
All we are asking in these Amendments is that what we understand to be the intention of the Government in this regard shall be written into the Bill and that, as a matter of the very greatest consequence and principle to the whole medical profession and to the pharmacists—they have been urging this upon the Minister by representations in every possible way—it should receive recognition in the Bill.
The British Medical Association, as is well known, passed a resolution which said that under no circumstances whatever should a doctor be required to be an agent to collect a Government charge on prescriptions. The easiest way for the Minister to meet the demands of the profession would be to write into the Clause that such is not his intention and, more than that, that he will not require the medical profession to act in this way.
We want to follow this somewhat further. The second Amendment very properly says that no chemist should be required to determine the amount of any charge under the Clause. That deals with the pharmacist who is making up prescriptions in the hospital or in the outpatients clinic. Nowadays there are many very large out-patients units, and we hope there will be many more, and, therefore, it is a matter of very real consequence whether or not a pharmacist, who is already very busy, should be required to do the extra job of calculating the extra cost of the prescription which is being made up.
So far we have had only the vaguest word as to who is to do the work of collecting the charges and finding out what the charges are to be. One statement that we had was that it would be left to the hospital management committees to decide who would do the work. We want to know something more than that. We want to have laid before us before we leave this matter any directions or circulars which have been issued to the

management committees advising how they are to do this. We want to know whether or not such circulars have been issued.
We want to know whether in any of these cases this will be the job of the pharmacist. If so, it will inevitably mean an imposition upon the pharmacists which they greatly resent and which they understood the Ministry had promised would not be placed on them. It also means that extra work will be entailed and extra staff will inevitably be required.
These are not unimportant matters. They are matters of principle which are of very great moment indeed to the professions concerned. They could be perfectly easily written in by the right hon. Gentleman without in any way infringing the general purpose of his Measure, much as we dislike it. There is no reason at all why he should not grant us this small concession and in that way demonstrate to the profession the sincerity of his oft-expressed desire not to use them in this way. I appeal to him to give the first sign of any concession that he has yet made to this side of the Committee.

8.15 p.m.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: rose—

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: On a point of order, Sir Charles. I noticed on the indicators that Amendments Nos. 1–3 are being discussed. I understood that when the Amendments were being discussed in the early stages it was agreed that Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 should be taken together and that Amendment No. 3 should be called separately. May I have your Ruling on this?

Dr. Stross: Further to that point of order. This question arose when I was speaking. When I was referring to the first and second Amendments I was asked whether I would include the third. I pointed out that there was a great difference in principle between the third Amendment and the first and second Amendments. The Chair was kind enough to allow me to deal with the first and second Amendments only, and so far the third Amendment has not been discussed or called.

The Chairman: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman, because I thought the three should come together—

Mrs. Braddock: That is what is on the indicator.

The Chairman: It was decided, however, that only the first and second Amendments should be taken together. The original idea was that the three would be taken together.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The discussion has ranged over many matters which are not the concern of the Bill, and I feel it beholden upon me to bring the Committee back to the Clause under discussion, which relates to the:
… manner as may be prescribed, of such charges as may be prescribed in respect of the supply, as part of the hospital and specialist services under Part II of the principal Act, of drugs, medicines or appliances.
The effect of the Amendment would be to relieve any doctor of any obligation to collect charges in connection with the supply of drugs, medicines or appliances to hospital out-patients.
There has obviously been a misunderstanding regarding the effect of the Amendment, because the possibility of a doctor collecting charges from hospital out-patients really hardly arises. I was surprised to find the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer) suggesting that there were hospitals where there was no one else but a doctor to collect the charges.

Mr. Messer: Is the hon. Lady not aware that hospitals have special clinics which are not on the site of the hospital and it would be the most convenient thing in the world for a management committee to instruct a medical officer in charge of such an outside clinic to collect the shillings from the patients?

Mr. Somerville Hastings: Might I also point out to the hon. Lady that pharmacists are not on duty throughout the whole of the 24 hours in hospitals and that patients come in at all times of the day and night and righly demand treatment, and therefore the prescriptions or the medicines have to be made up by the medical officer on duty? That happens at nearly every hospital that I have ever heard of.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Gentleman says that that happens in every hospital that he has ever heard of, but does he seriously suggest that the majority of our

hospitals are denuded of staff during the evenings except for medical officers? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] The dispensers are generally there.

Mr. Hastings: Certainly not. How many hospitals in London have dispensers on duty during 24 hours? I have never known of one.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: No, Sir. Hon. Gentlemen know perfectly well that they have raised an exception which is not relevant to the main issue. The hon. Member for Tottenham, as chairman of one of the regional boards, knows very well that his hospitals are not so ill-staffed that in the main doctors are doing the dispensing.

Mr. Messer: Is the hon. Lady aware that there are special clinics, such as tuberculosis clinics, which are not on the site of the hospital and are staffed by a medical man, a health visitor and a nurse, and that in such a case it is possible for an arrangement to be made that a doctor shall take the 1s. prescription fees?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Even those clinics are staffed by people who see the patients in and mark their cards, and it should not be beyond the wit of management committees to make a satisfactory arrangement.

Mrs. Braddock: It is unfortunate that the hon. Lady has no knowledge at all about this.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Lady is quite wrong. The possibility of a doctor having to collect charges from out-patients is very remote. It is significant that, despite the comments of the Opposition, no representations whatever have been made about this Clause by the profession, because the profession knows that this does not arise.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the hon. Lady now saying that there is no need for these words? If she is not intending that the doctors should have to do this work, then there is no reason why these words should not be put in to satisfy the medical profession, not only in this issue, but on the wider issue that is being raised.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The medical profession are apparently so convinced that it will not cause them distress that they


have made no representations. The only representations have been the misleading speeches of hon. Members opposite.

Dr. H. Morgan: I have not taken part in this debate, and I have not been called upon or given an opportunity to speak, but I hope that I might be allowed at this stage to make one observation. The hon. Lady is showing a complete want of knowledge in this matter, and I am surprised that she has not been well briefed by the excellent Civil Service in the Ministry of Health. Almost every statement she has made about the service has been inaccurate.
It is a common practice in hospitals and in the adjuncts of hospitals that in the afternoons and at mid-day when the first morning rush is over that the work done is not done by the dispenser, because dispensary hours cannot last the whole of the time and there have to be a series of reliefs. What happens and what is a constant part of the work is that the medical officer or medical officers on duty do this particular work. When we are discussing a Bill of this sort we are entitled to some accuracy from the Government Front Bench.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I am not saying that the dispensers do all this work. What I am saying is that there are no hospitals so lacking in staff that there is not somebody there to collect the 1s. on the prescription. There was a very wide discussion, well outside this particular Amendment, regarding the rural doctors—

Dr. Broughton: Is that not a gross reflection on the Chair?

The Chairman: I was consulting with my adviser at the time and did not hear what was said.

Dr. Broughton: Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to repeat it.

The Chairman: I am sure I do not need to call upon the hon. Lady to respect the Chair.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: It is obvious that hon. Members opposite are determined to prevent me from answering the debate.

Dr. Morgan: That is not true. The hon. Lady has no right to make a statement of that kind.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I do not think the hon. Member for Warrington (Dr. Morgan) has been here during our debate.

Dr. Morgan: Oh, yes, I was.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Arrangements with the rural doctors are in the process of being worked out, and we believe that arrangements will be come to which will be satisfactory to both sides. I do not propose to enter into an argument on the very controversial points which have been made, when these negotiations are progressing very smoothly through co-operation by the members of the profession.

Dr. Stross: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I am not pressing the point at all, but only asking her about a specific aspect of hospital out-patients treatment which I mentioned this afternoon.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: With the very greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, the subject which he mentioned this afternoon, namely, patients who are suffering from venereal disease, is the subject of another Amendment, and I do not think it is wholly relevant here.

Dr. Stross: It is not going to be called.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: If it is not going to be called I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and give him the reply, although I would not think that it came strictly under this particular Amendment. It is not proposed to charge for drugs, etc., supplied at a clinic to patients suffering from venereal disease. This exemption will be made in the regulations.
In the narrow scope of this Amendment chemists deal with few out-patients prescriptions. If a hospital out-patient gets a prescription in the hospital dispensary he will pay a shilling. If he decides not to pay the flat-rate charge of 1s. but thinks the item would cost him less that that sum, then he is perfectly at liberty to buy outside the Health Service from a chemist, and in such a case it will feature with the chemist as an ordinary transaction over the counter.
Some hon. Members opposite spoke as if chemists never priced prescriptions or assessed the price of items which they sold over the counter. I think it was a little unfair to suggest that we were calling on chemists to render charges and


assess the price of prescriptions as though it were something they had not done for many years.

Mr. Hastings: Would the hon. Lady be good enough to expand that a little. As I understand her, the patient who is not happy about the cost of a prescription in the hospital's out-patient department can take it to the chemist and the chemist then decides whether its cost is less than 1s. or not. What I should like to know is, firstly, what hospital ever allowed a patient to take his medicine card to the chemist outside? It is not a written prescription but a medicine card. Secondly, how many chemists would understand the shorthand which is peculiar to a particular hospital? All sorts of funny things are written. When I was a student some of us wrote a.d.m. and a.d.t. My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) will understand what a.d.t. means; "a" means "any" and "t" means "thing."

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I will not comment on the hon. Gentleman's prescribing.
A great deal is being made on the issue of the very small number of prescriptions that would be paid for privately outside the Health Service. There are, of course, hospitals where prescriptions have to be dispensed by others because there are not the dispensers, but I cannot say straight off what the answer is to the hon. Member who raised the matter. I do not think it is beyond working out, but it is a matter which will be dealt with by the hospitals concerned. One hon. Gentleman raised the matter of charges for drugs, etc., in a clinic. The charge will apply on prescriptions for drugs which are supplied and are taken to be used outside the hospital.
As far as the pharmaceutical profession are concerned, we are working out arrangements in consultation with them. I do not accept the comments of hon. Gentlemen opposite that they are not willing to co-operate with us in this particular measure.
One final item was raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop), when he protested that the hospitals should be asked to collect charges. At present they have, and use, the machinery provided under previous

legislation to collect charges for repairs to appliances damaged or lost through negligence, for the replacement of which patients may have to pay. In certain specialist hospitals also, charges have been collected for spectacles and dentures. I am sure it is not beyond the wit of the hospital management committees to make arrangements in respect of the other charges which it is proposed to introduce under this Bill.
Generally, the debate has ranged wide. So far as the first Amendment is concerned, the doctor will not have to collect money in the hospital, to any material degree. In the case of the second Amendment, if the doctor prescribes something costing less than 1s., the prescription can be made up outside the Health Service as an ordinary, private, over-the-counter transaction.

8.30 p.m.

Dr. Horace King: We are rather disappointed with the reply which the Minister has given to the Committee. I want to deal briefly with the position of the chemists under this Bill. As a preface, I would say that the chemists were not particularly enamoured of the Health Service when it began, but that they have loyally backed it up and, in their recent discussions, they have revealed alarm at the prospects envisaged under this Bill in respect of the charges to be made.
Just as they indicated in advance that they would support the National Health Service Act, they have indicated at their recent meetings that they are prepared to support whatever charges the Minister may propose under this Bill, but they are alarmed at what is happening. At a meeting of the North London Pharmaceutical Association on 20th March, the Vice-President expressed the view that I have tried to present when he said that the 1s. levy was unwelcome and would tend to raise a barrier between the pharmacist and the public.
He said that in agreeing not to oppose the charges the Pharmaceutical Society had shown a commendable spirit, but the "Pharmaceutical Journal" itself says that in principle the charges are indefensible. So that if in this Committee I make criticisms that have been expressed to me by chemists who have loyally served the National Health Service, it is not from


a political point of view but from the point of view of a profession far less likely to be labour than the people speaking on these benches, a branch of the scientific professions which has served the Service faithfully, and which is prepared to work the scheme although seriously concerned about practical difficulties
I was amazed that in this Committee the two Ministers should argue that the chemists were behaving irresponsibly when they talked about the difficulty of pricing prescriptions because they had had to do it in times past. Neither of the two Ministers seems to know that in olden days millions of people in this country were unable to take doctors' prescriptions to chemists because they could not afford to do so. There has been a vast increase not only in the amount of business done by the chemists but also in the administering of doctors' prescriptions brought to them.
My chemist friends have told me that in their opinion the only way in which this scheme can work is if we charge a flat rate of 1s., whatever the cost of the prescription. If the patient has the right to know the value of what he is going to be charged 1s. for over the counter—and surely the Government would not want to charge him 1s. for 3d. worth of medicine. I believe it is a fantastic suggestion that the patient should be his own pricer, which is what the Minister suggested.
The Minister has said today, as well as previously, that if the patient does not want to pay the 1s. until he is sure that he will get 1s. worth of value, he must take the prescription away, price it and then, if he does not approve of the price, buy it in the ordinary way. But he cannot do that without going to the chemist to get the medicine priced.
I believe that patients will demand to know the cost of the prescriptions, and the chemists tell me that this will mean extra skilled labour and time wasted in the chemists' shops of the country, which are already working very long hours at the moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) was right when he said that if we put extra work on the pharmacists, they will demand extra reward.
I want to point out the special problems of the rural chemist in dealing with the

varying charge of a prescription. A rural chemist writes to me:
Rural chemists never see a very large proportion of their clients. Many and varied are the means by which the E.C.10s reach the chemist from isolated farms and hamlets. Bundles of these prescriptions are brought in by bakers' roundsmen, butchers and neighbours. They are dispensed and delivered to isolated patients by the co-operation and voluntary good will service of the rural community.
He points out that the imposition of a charge, and above all the imposition of a charge which the chemist will have to price on the spot so that the patient who is not there will know whether he is prepared to pay for it or not—all this will break up much of the co-operative rural good will in carrying out the medical requirements of people in the countryside. If the chemist has to determine the price, then the voluntary helper who is taking the prescription to the chemist for the district patient will have to decide whether the patient will be willing to pay the 1s. He will have to get a receipt if the patient intends to claim the money later on, so the patient will have to share the secret with the voluntary helper that he cannot afford to pay the 1s. and that he will reclaim it.
A chemist pointed out to me that often the person coming for a prescription is a child who brings no money, and that there is a loss to the chemist if the 1s. is not paid at the time. Certainly if a question is put when the child is buying the prescription as to whether the prescription is under 1s. and whether the child will have to pay that sum or the 1s. itself it will make the problem fantastic.
Again, pharmacists tell me that repeat orders for prescriptions vary in detail. On one occasion a doctor may prescribe a certain quantity of a drug which may take the cost over 1s. but may subsequently prescribe a smaller quantity of the drug which will bring the cost just under 1s. The chemists, therefore, will have to explain to the patient the difference in price between the two prescriptions. This is one of the things which makes the chemist say that the charges proposed will cause friction between him and patients.
I want to mention also the complicated nature of the Minister's system of payment to chemists. The chemists are now being paid for prescriptions which were


dispensed over a year ago. Indeed, I understand that they are receiving now their final settlements for prescriptions which were prescribed some 18 months ago, less the advances which the Minister has given them on account from time to time.
Into this already difficult pattern of National Health Service finance, we shall now have to place, the chemists tell me, three groups: the new patient, the patient who pays the shilling, and the rural group, for which the Minister, I hope, will say that he is going to make some provision. The chemists imagine that the rural group will overcome the problem by some kind of 1s. stamp.
Then there is the group for which the professional chemist, by his own medical conscience, will have to dispense free because of the emergencies that a chemist must meet in honour to his profession without worrying about money. There is the subsidiary group of prescriptions dispensed and not paid for, for a variety of reasons. Already the chemist has to divide the prescriptions which he dispenses into two groups: those under 5s. and those over 5s. He will now have to add to the division of the various prescriptions which he dispenses all this extra number of groups. The chemists feel that this will certainly delay what is already very much behind time: the settlement of their accounts.

I therefore say in all seriousness that we cannot add to the burden of the pharmacists the burden of pricing prescriptions on the spot to satisfy the people who want to pay either cash if the cost is under 1s., or the 1s. if a prescription costs more than that amount. It is for the Minister to solve that problem.

I do not want to weary the Committee by reading at length a communication which I have received from an outstanding chemist in my town, who is certainly not a member of my political party but who elaborates in his letter the long processes and the extra work which the collection of this charge will involve on the chemists. It is part of his argument that, in his view, the only way in which this fantastic and miserable new charge can be made is to have a flat rate prescription charge of 1s., whatever the drugs dispensed. I urge the Minister to think again about what we have been saying and to see whether he cannot in his negotiations with the chemists evolve something to solve some of the problems I have mentioned.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 260.

Division No.81.]
AYES
[8.45 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Crowder, John E. (Finchley)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Boyle, Sir Edward
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)


Alport, C. J. M.
Brains, B. R.
Cuthbert, W. N.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Davidson, Viscountess


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)


Arbuthnot, John
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Deedes, W. F.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Brooman-White, R. C.
Dighy, S. Wingfield


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Baker, P. A. D.
Bullard, D. G.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Bullock, Capt. M.
Donner, P. W.


Baldwin, A. E.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Drewe, C.


Banks, Col. C.
Burden, F. F. A.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Barber, A. P. L.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Duthie, W. S.


Baxter, A. B.
Carson, Hon. E.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Cary, Sir Robert
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Channon, H.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Erroll, F. J.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Fell, A.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Finlay, Graeme


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Cole, Norman
Fisher, Nigel


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Colegate, W. A.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Birch, Nigel
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Fort, R.


Bishop, F. P.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Foster, John


Black, C. W.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Cranborne, Viscount
Gage, C. H.


Bossom, A. C.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollock)


Bowen, E. R.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)




Gammans, L. D.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Russell, R. S.


George, Rt. Hon. Mai. G. Lloyd
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Glyn, Sir Ralph
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Godber, J. B.
McAdden, S. J.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
McCallum, Major D.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Gough, C. F. H.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Scott, R. Donald


Gower, H. R.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Makeson, Brig. H. R.
Shepherd, William


Gridley, Sir Arnold
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Maclean, Fitzroy
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Harden, J. R. E.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Snadden, W. McN.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Soames, Capt. C.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Speir, R. M.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Markham, Major S. F.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Hay, John
Marples, A. E.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Heald, Sir Lionel
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Stevens, G. P.


Heath, Edward
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maude, Angus
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Higgs, J. M. C.
Maudling, R.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Storey, S.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Mellor, Sir John
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Molson, A. H. E.
Studholme, H. G.


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Summers, G. S.


Hollis, M. C.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Sutcliffe, H.


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Hope, Lord John
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hopkinson, Henry
Nicholls, Harmar
Teeling, W.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Horobin, I. M.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Nutting, Anthony
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Hurd, A. R.
Oakshott, H. D.
Tilney, John


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Odey, G. W.
Touche, G. C.


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Turner, H. F. L.


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Turton, R. H.


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Vane, W. M. F.


Jennings, R.
Osborne, C.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Partridge, E.
Vosper, D. F.


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Keeling, Sir Edward
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Watkinson, H. A.


Lambton, Viscount
Pitman, I. J.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Powell, J. Enoch
Wellwood, W.


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Leather, E. H. C.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Profumo, J. D.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Raikes, H. V.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Lindsay, Martin
Redmayne, E.
Wills, G.


Linstead, H. N.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Llewellyn, D. T.
Renton, D. L. M.
Wood, Hon. R.


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
York, C.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon, Selwyn (Wirral)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)



Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Robson-Brown, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Mr. Butcher and Mr. Kaberry.


Low, A. R. W.
Roper, Sir Harold





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Benson, G.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)


Adams, Richard
Beswick, F.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)


Albu, A. H.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A (Ebbw Vale)
Burke, W. A.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Bing, G. H. C.
Burton, Miss F. E.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Blackburn, F.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Blenkinsop, A.
Callaghan, L. J.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Blyton, W. R.
Carmichael, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Boardman, H.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.


Awbery, S. S.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon A. G.
Champion, A. J.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Bowden, H. W.
Chapman, W. D.


Baird, J.
Bowles, F. G.
Chetwynd, G. R.


Balfour, A.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Clunie, J.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon F. J.
Brockway, A. F.
Cocks, F. S.


Bence, C. R.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Coldrick, W.


Benn, Wedgwood
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Collick, P. H.







Cook, T. F.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon).


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Cove, W. G.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Rhodes, H.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Richards, R.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S)
Ross, William


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Royle, C.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Keenan, W.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Deer, G.
King, Dr. H. M.
Short, E. W.


Delargy, H. J.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Donnelly, D. L.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Lewis, Arthur
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lindgren, G. S.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S)


Edelman, M.
Logan, D. G.
Snow, J. W.


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
MacColl, J. E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McGhee, H. G.
Sparks, J. A.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
McInnes, J.
Steele, T.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
McLeavy, F.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Ewart, R.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Strachey, Rt. Hon J.


Fernyhough, E.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Field, W. J.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Fienburgh, W.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Finch, H. J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Bragg)
Swingler, S. T.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E)
Sylvester, G. O.


Follick, M.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Foot, M. M.
Manual, A. C.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Forman, J. C.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mayhew, C. P.
Thomas, David (Aberdara)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mellish, R. J.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Gibson, C. W.
Messer, F.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Glanville, James
Mikardo, Ian
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Gooch, E. G.
Mitchison, G. R.
Thurtle, Ernest


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Monslow, W.
Timmons, J.


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Moody, A. S.
Tomney, F.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefie'd)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Morley, R.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Gray, C. F.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Viant, S. P.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lawisham, S.)
Wallace, H. W.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mort, D. L.
Watkins, T. E.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Moyle, A.
Webb, Rt. Hon M. (Bradford, C.)


Grimond, J.
Mulley, F. W.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Murray, J. D.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Nally, W.
West, D. G.


Hamilton, W. W.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Hannan, W.
O'Brien, T.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Hardy, E. A.
Oliver, G. H.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Hargreaves, A.
Oswald, T.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Padley, W. E.
Wigg, George


Hastings, S.
Paget, R. T.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hayman, F. H.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Panned, Charles
Williams, David (Neath)


Herbison, Miss M.
Pargitar, G. A.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillary)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Parker, J.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hobson, C. R.
Paton, J.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Holman, P.
Peart, T. F.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Houghton, Douglas
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Wilson, Rt. Hon Harold (Huyton)


Hoy, J. H.
Popplewell, E.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Hubbard, T. F.
Porter, G.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Wyatt, W. L.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Yates, V. F.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Proctor, W. T.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pryde, D. J.



Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rankin, John
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes.


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Reeves, J.

Question put accordingly, "The those words be there inserted."

The committee divided: Ayes, 263; Noes,284.

Division No. 82]
AYES
[8.55 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon F. J.


Adams, Richard
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Bence, C. R.


Albu, A. H.
Awbery, S. S.
Benn, Wedgwood


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Bacon, Miss Alice
Benson, G.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Baird, J.
Beswick, F.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Balfour, A.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)




Bing, G. H. C.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Popplewell, E.


Blackburn, F.
Hastings, S.
Porter, G.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hayman, F. H.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Blyton, W. R.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Price, Phillips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Boardman, H.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A (Rowley Regis)
Proctor, W. T.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A G.
Herbison, Miss M.
Pryde, D. J.


Bowden, H. W.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Bowles, F. G.
Hobson, C. R.
Rankin, John


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Holman, P.
Reeves, J.


Brockway, A. F.
Houghton, Douglas
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hoy, J. H.
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hubbard, T. F.
Rhodes, H.


Brown, Rt. Hon George (Belper)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Richards, R.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Burke, W. A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Callaghan, L. J.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Ross, William


Carmichael, J.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Royle, C.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Champion, A. J.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Chapman, W. D.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Clunie, J.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Short, E. W.


Cocks, F. S.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Coldrick, W.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Collick, P. H.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Cook, T. F.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Corbel, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Cove, W. G.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Snow, J. W.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Keenan, W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank


Crosland, C. A. R.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Sparks, J. A.


Crossman, R. H. S.
King, Dr. H. M.
Steele, T.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Lewis, Arthur
Strauss, Rt. Hon George (Vauxhall)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lindgren, G. S.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Logan, D. G.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
MacColl, J. E.
Swingler, S. T.


Deer, G.
McGhee, H. G.
Sylvester, G. O.


Delargy, H. J.
McInnes, J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Donnelly, D. L.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Driberg, T. E. N.
McLeavy, F.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W Bromwich)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Edelman, M.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thurtle, Ernest


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Timmons, J.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Tomney, F.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Manuel, A. C.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Ewart, R.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Fernyhough, E.
Mayhew, C. P.
Viant, S. P.


Field, W. J.
Mellish, R. J.
Wallace, H. W.


Fienburgh, W.
Messer, F.
Watkins, T. E.


Finch, H. J.
Mikardo, Ian
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mitchison, G. R.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Follick, M.
Monslow, W.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Foot, M. M.
Moody, A. S.
West, D. G.


Forman, J. C.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Morley, R.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Gibson, C. W.
Mort, D. L.
Wigg, George


Glanville, James
Moyle, A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Gooch, E. G.
Malley, F. W.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Murray, J. D.
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossandale)
Nally, W.
Williams, David (Neath)


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon P. J.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
O'Brien, T.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Grey, C. F.
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oswald, T.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Padley, W. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon Harold (Huyton)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Paget, R. T.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Grimond, J.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wyatt, W. L.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Pannell, Charles
Yates, V. F.


Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Pargiter, G. A.
Younger, Rt. Hon K.


Hamilton, W. W.
Parker, J.



Hannan, W.
Paton, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hardy, E. A.
Peart, T. F.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes


Hargreaves, A.
Plummer, Sir Leslie








NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Gage, C. H.
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Alport, C. J. M.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Gammans, L. D.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Maitland, Comdr J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj G. Lloyd
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Arbuthnot, John
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Markham, Major S. F.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Godber, J. B.
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Gomme-Duncan, Col A.
Marples, A. E.


Baker, P. A. D.
Gough, C. F. H.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Gower, H. R.
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)


Baldwin, A. E.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Maude, Angus


Banks, Col. C.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Maudling, R.


Barber, A. P. L.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr S. L. C.


Baxter, A. B.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Beach, Major Hicks
Harden, J. R. E.
Mellor, Sir John


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Hare, Han. J. H.
Molson, A. H. E.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Harvey, Air Cdre A V. (Macclesfield)
Mott-Ratclyffe, C. E.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Harvey-Watt, Sir George
Nicholls, Harmar


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Hay, John
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Birch, Nigel
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Bishop, F. P.
Heald, Sir Lionel
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Black, C. W.
Heath, Edward
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Bossom, A. C.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Nutting, Anthony


Bowen, E. R.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Oakshott, H. D.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Odey, G. W.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hinchengbrooke, Viscount
O'Neill, Rt, Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)


Brains, B. R.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Hollis, M. C.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Osborne, C.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hope, Lord John
Partridge, E.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hopkinson, Henry
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Bullard, D. G.
Horobin, I. M.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Peyton, J. W. W.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Burden, F. F. A.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Pitman, I. J.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Powell, J. Enoch


Carson, Hon. E.
Hurd, A. R.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Channon, H.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Profumo, J. D.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Raikes, H. V.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Redmayne, E.


Cole, Norman
Jennings, R.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Colegate, W. A.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Renton, D. L. M.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Keeling, Sir Edward
Robson-Brown, W.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Cranborne, Viscount
Lambert, Hon. G.
Roper, Sir Harold


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. G.
Lambton, Viscount
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Russell, R. S.


Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Leather, E. H. C.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Cuthbert, W. N.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Sandys, Rt. Hon D.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Schofield, Lt.-Col W. (Rochdale)


Davidson, Viscountess
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Scott, R. Donald


Deedes, W. F.
Lindsay, Martin
Scott-Miller, Cmdr R.


Digby, S. Wingfield




Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Linstead, H. N.
Shepherd, William


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Donner, P. W.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Drewe, C.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Duthie, W. S.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Snadden, M. McN.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Low, A. R. W.
Soames, Capt. C.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lucas, P. B. (Brantford)
Speir, R. M.


Erroll, F. J.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Fell, A.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Finlay, Graeme.
McAdden, S. J.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Fisher, Nigel
McCallum, Major D.
Stevens, G. P.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Fort, R.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Foster, John
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Storey, S.


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Maclean, Fitzroy
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)







Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Tilney, John
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Studholme, H. G.
Touche, G. C.
Wellwood, W.


Summers, G. S.
Turner, H. F. L.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Sutcliffe, H.
Turton, R. H.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Vane, W. M. F.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Teeling, W.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Vosper, D. F.
Wills, G.


Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Walker-Smith, D. C.
Wood, Hon. R.


Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
York, C.


Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.



Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Watkinson, H. A.
TELLERS TOR THE NOES:




Mr. Butcher and Mr. Kaberrs.

Amendment proposed: In page 1, line 9, at end, insert:
(2) No chemist shall be required to determine the amount of any charge under this section.—[Dr. Stross.]

Question put, "The those words be there inserted."

The committee divided: Ayes, 265; Noes, 283.

Division No. 83.]
AYES
[9.7 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Delargy, H. J.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Adams, Richard
Donnelly, D. L.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Albu, A. H.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Edelman, M.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Awbery, S. S.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S)


Baird, J.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Balfour, A.
Ewart, R.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Fernyhough, E.
Keenan, W.


Bence, C. R.
Field, W. J.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Benn, Wedgwood
Fienburgh, W.
King, Dr. H. M.


Benson, G.
Finch, H. J.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Beswick, F.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Follick, M.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Bing, G. H. C.
Foot, M. M.
Lewis, Arthur


Blackburn, F.
Forman, J. C.
Lindgren, G. S.


Blenkinsop, A.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Logan, D. G.


Blyton, W. R.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
MacColl, J. E.


Boardman, H.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
McGhee, H. G.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Gibson, C. W.
McInnes, J.


Bowden, H. W.
Glanville, James
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Bowen, E. R.
Gooch, E. G.
McLeavy, F.


Bowles, F. G.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Brockway, A. F.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Grey, C. F.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Burke, W. A.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Manuel, A. C.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Grimond, J.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mayhew, C. P.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hall, Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mellish, R. J.


Carmichael, J.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Messer, F.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hamilton, W. W.
Mikardo, Ian


Champion, A. J.
Hannan, W.
Mitchison, G. R.


Chapman, W. D.
Hardy, E. A.
Monslow, W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hargreaves, A.
Moody, A. S.


Clunie, J.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.


Cocks, F. S.
Hastings, S.
Morley, R.


Coldrick, W.
Hayman, F. H.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Collick, P. H.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Cook, T. F.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Mort, D. L.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Herbison, Miss M.
Moyle, A.


Cove, W. G.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Mulley, F. W.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hobson, C. R.
Murray, J. D.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Holman, P.
Nally, W.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Houghton, Douglas
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hoy, J. H.
O'Brien, T.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hubbard, T. F.
Oliver, G. H.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Oswald, T.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Padley, W. E.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paget, R. T.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Deer, G.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pannell, Charles




Pargiter, G. A.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Viant, S. P.


Parker, J.
Silverman, Julius (Erdigton)
Wallace, H. W.


Paton, J.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Watkins, T. E.


Peart, T. F.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Popplewell, E.
Snow, J. W.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Porter, G.
Sorensen, R. W.
West, D. G.


Price, Joseph T. (Westboughton)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W)
Sparks, J. A.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Proctor, W. T.
Steele, T.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Pryde, D. J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Wigg, George


Rankin, John
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Reeves, J.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Wilkins, W. A.


Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Stress, Dr. Barnett
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Reid, William (Camlachie)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Rhodes, H.
Swingler, S. T.
Williams, David (Neath)


Richards, R.
Sylvester, G. O.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Ross, William
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Royle, C.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Thurtle, Ernest
Wyatt, W. L.


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Timmons, J.
Yates, V. F.


Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Tomney, F.
Younger, Rt Hon K.


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Turner-Samuels, M.



Short, E. W.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Pearson and Mr. Holmes.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hay, John


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.


Alport, C. J. M.
Cranborne, Viscount
Heald, Sir Lionel


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Heath, Edward


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Higgs, J. M. C.


Arbuthnot, John
Crowder, Petro (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Cuthbert, W. N.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Baker, P. A. D.
Davidson, Viscountess
Hirst, Geoffrey


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Deedes, W. F.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Baldwin, A E.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hollis, M. C.


Banks, Col. C.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)


Barber, A. P. L.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hope, Lord John


Baxter, A. B.
Donner, P. W.
Hopkinson, Henry


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Drewe, C.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Horobin, I. M.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Duthie, W. S.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Eccles, Rt. Hon D. M.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Erroll, F. J.
Hurd, A. R.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Fell, A.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Birch, Nigel
Finlay, Graeme
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Bishop, F. P.
Fisher, Nigel
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Black, C. W.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)


Bossom, A. C.
Fort, R.
Jennings, R.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Foster, John
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Braine, B. R.
Gage, C. H.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Kaberry, D.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Keeling, Sir Edward


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Gammans, L. D.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Brooman-White, R. C.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Lambton, Viscount


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bullard, D. G.
Godber, J. B.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Leather, E. H. C.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Gough, C. F. H.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Burden, F. F. A.
Gower, H. R.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Carson, Hon. E.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Lindsay, Martin


Cary, Sir Robert
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Linstead, H. N.


Channon, H.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Llewellyn, D. T.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Harden, J. R. E.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Cole, Norman
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)


Colegate, W. A.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Low, A. R. W.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)







Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Partridge, E.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.
Storey, S.


McAdden, S. J.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


McCallum, Major D.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Summers, G. S.


Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Sutcliffe, H.


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Pitman, I. J.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Powell, J. Enoch
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Maclean, Fitzroy
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Teeling, W.


MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Profumo, J. D.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Raikes, H. V.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W)


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Redmayne, E.
Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Markham, Major S. F.
Renton, D. L. M.
Tilley, John


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Roberts, Peter (Healey)
Touche, G. C.


Marples, A. E.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Turner, H. F. L.


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Robson-Brown, W.
Turton, R. H.


Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Maude, Angus
Roper, Sir Harold
Vane, W. M. F.


Maudling, R.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Russell, R. S.
Vesper, D. F.


Medlicott, Brig, F.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W)


Mellor, Sir John
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Molson, A. H. E.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Scott, R. Donald
Watkinson, H. A.


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Shepherd, William
Wellwood, W.


Nicholls, Harmar
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Snadden, W. McN.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Nugent, G. R. H.
Soames, Capt. C.
Wills, G.


Nutting, Anthony
Spearman, A. C. M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Oakshott, H. D.
Speir, R. M.
Wood, Hon. R.


Odey, G. W.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
York, C.


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N)
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)



Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Stevens, G. P.
Mr. Butcher and


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Mr. Kaberry.


Osborne, C.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Mrs. Braddock: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, at the end, to insert:
(2) No hospital management committee, board of management or board of governors shall be required to make or recover any charge under this section.
This is a very important Amendment, because it goes to the root of the whole question of charges to be made for prescriptions and surgical appliances in the hospital out-patients departments. I am very sorry indeed that the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health is not in her place, because I have one or two things to say and I cannot postpone them. She will have to read them later on.
I have listened to the debate up to now and have heard at least four hon. Gentlemen who are members of the medical profession putting forward and supporting Amendments and hoping for a reasoned and sensible reply to arguments which were based upon their intimate knowledge of their profession. When she came to reply the hon. Lady showed her complete ignorance of the whole process of hospitalisation and everything in

relation to it. What I wanted her to hear me say was that while it might be all right to stand before the microphone at Broadcasting House to make party political broadcasts and be flattered by those sections of the Conservative Party who listen to her—

Mr. Frederick Gough: On a point of order. Is what the hon. Lady is saying within the limits of the Amendment?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Thomas): I was hoping that the hon. Lady was about to come to the Amendment now before us.

Mrs. Braddock: I am about to come to that, but before making my case, which will be a serious one, I think I am entitled to draw attention to the fact that up to the moment the Parliamentary Secretary has been completely unable to make any reasoned reply to explain why my hon. Friend's Amendments should not be accepted. I was saying that it is very easy to stand in front of a microphone at Broadcasting House and make


party political broadcasts, but it is not so easy to get away with ignorance in this Committee as it is over the microphone to the country at large. On an important matter of this sort the country expects Ministers to have some knowledge of the subject being discussed, and to be able sensibly and reasonably to reply to whatever criticisms may be made.
I was hoping that the hon. Lady would be here, because I intend to tell the Committee why this Amendment has been put down. I am sure she ought to be informed of the process involved in the outpatient and in-patient treatment in our hospitals, because until she knows that she will be quite incapable of making any sensible contribution to our discussions.
This is what happens. A person is, for some reason or another, admitted to hospital on the medical note of their doctor or at the request of one of the specialists in the service. They remain in hospital undergoing treatment for some time. To a very large extent, we are unable to supply beds for needy patients, and doctors have to discharge patients from hospitals, and particularly from maternity units, far sooner than they ought to for the good of the patient. That is because there are such long waiting lists and the beds are urgently required for other cases.
Because of that, there are out-patients departments to continue the treatment and attention, first, for those discharged from in-patient accommodation who need continuation of the treatment; secondly, for those whom the medical profession think can be prevented from occupying hospital beds, and so saving the service the weekly cost of maintenance charges, which are very high at the moment; thirdly, they are very often used because people are unable to receive in-patient treatment for the time that it is necessary, and in order to prevent an increase in the growth of the disease, whatever it may be, the doctor sends the patient to the out-patient department where he considers out-patient treatment to be necessary.
This happens in almost every hospital under the control of the Health Service.

Where the hospital has not got an accredited out-patient department, it makes emergency arrangements so that its patients can continue to visit the same doctor or specialist at the intervals at which the doctor or specialist desires to see them. For example, in maternity cases, in order to save the woman going to the doctor for her medicines, after she has been to the ante-natal clinic, the ante-natal clinic departments supply the necessary medicines. That prevents a woman in that condition travelling to the ante-natal clinic, getting a prescription and then travelling back to her doctor to get the medicine.
If the Minister makes inquiries, I think he will find that in almost every antenatal clinic throughout the country the women who attend, rather than being referred back again to their family doctors or medical practitioners, are supplied with the necessary drugs and medicines in order to save them dragging themselves about from one place to another. I think that is the most extensive service in which medicines and drugs are issued.
I listened to the hon. Lady when she made her last reply, and I thought that she made a most appalling statement. She said that no charge would be made for medicines or injections that were taken on the premises. I can visualise a lot of patients lining up, with nurses pouring teaspoonsful of medicine down their throats in order to prevent them having to pay 1s. for their prescriptions and having to have them dispensed outside.
This business is getting into the most complete muddle. By the time the Minister reads the whole of that the debates and the points put forward from this side of the Committee—because there has been a great deficiency either of criticisms or helpful suggestions from the other side of the Committee during this debate—and when he comes to look at the administrative details required to put this scheme into operation, I think he will find, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) when he was Minister of Health, that it was completely impossible to administer.
Let me put to the Minister one or two really serious points in relation to this matter. When my own Government was in control I took strong exception to the


imposition of charges of any sort under the National Health Scheme. I made a very strong statement to my own Minister in relation to that matter, and I am making just as strong, or perhaps a little stronger, statement to the present Government, that I have no intention of suggesting to any member of the community that these charges ought to be put into operation or that they are in any way administratively possible.
The reason I take such a strong exception to this—and I am speaking not only for myself but for many thousands of people—is that if this scheme is going to be administratively possible very detailed arrangements must be made. In one of her replies last night the hon. Lady said that it would be quite easy for a person in receipt of National Assistance to recover the cost of the medicine he or she needed.
That means that some special adminisstrative arrangements must be made immediately, so that the person in receipt of National Assistance can obtain a receipt from the chemist, the hospital, the out-patients' clinic or the tuberculosis department, whichever is the appropriate department, and that department must have an administrative officer to write upon that receipt the name and the National Health number of the patient concerned. Otherwise, anybody can say, "I am in receipt of National Assistance."and nobody can prove that he or she is not. If an ordinary receipt is given it opens up immediately the possibility—and the Government are really asking for it—of all sorts of abuses in relation to the reclaiming of the 1s. paid by a person for the medicine he or she needs.
9.30 p.m.
What is to prevent anyone getting a prescription from a doctor or hospital or chemist, paying 1s. for it, and saying, "I am in receipt of National Assistance"? I deprecate the need for any individual in this country at this time in the century having to say that to any official under any circumstances whatsoever. But if this scheme is to be put into operation that must be done.
If a person in need of a prescription has to pay 1s. to the chemist and say, "I am in receipt of National Assistance, I need a special receipt," can we estimate the number of receipts which would have to be supplied to every chemist, every

hospital and every out-patients' department and can we estimate the amount of administrative work that will be involved every time a patient says, "I am in receipt of National Assistance, I want a receipt for the money I have paid over, so that I can have it refunded"?
If we do not have the patient's name and National Health number on the receipt, we may say, "We will put his pension book number on it." The Parliamentary Secretary said, "All they have to do is to take their pension book to the post office and have their money refunded." Is the post office to be put into the difficulty of looking up the name and number on the receipt which a person has had to wait for at a chemist's shop in order that it may be checked up with the pension book, if it is a person who is in receipt of National Assistance and requires the 1s. refunded?
Imagine the terrific administrative details which will have to be dealt with in relation to this matter. It is not worth the amount of money which the Government are expecting to get back. It is much easier to deal with the position as it was dealt with before. I believe that if the Minister inquired of the civil servants who considered this matter before, he would be told that that was one of the specific reasons put to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale—that the administrative difficulties in relation to this scheme were so tremendous that it was not worth the trouble of doing it.
This procedure will have to apply in every out-patient department of every hospital. The Minister said last night, when we were discussing this matter, that the number of patients in each hospital requiring a prescription would be very small. If it is very small, is that not all the more reason why it would be foolish to designate a person to do that specific job? I do not think that it would be possible to designate only one person, because hospital out-patient departments are open for 24 hours. We cannot estimate the number of people who attend out-patient departments for accidents.
Is the Minister suggesting that if a person has an accident in the street, is taken to an out-patient department, is attended to by a doctor and either stitched up or plastered up or has some other attention given to him, and the doctor says, "I must give you a prescription


because you need a particular type of sedative so that you can settle down before you attend this clinic or another clinic tomorrow"—is that doctor to put the sedative down the patient's throat in order that the patient will not have to pay for it and so that it can be technically said that it has been administered on the hospital premises? But the accident might have happened at night. The patient might be able to go home and might not need to be put into a casualty bed. The doctor might say, "You have had a shock, but we do not want to keep you here. We will send you home in an ambulance and during the night you must take a prescription."
This is where the last Amendment very definitely comes in, because the doctor may be the only one in the casualty department or the others there may be heavily engaged with casualties. If he then dispenses the prescription himself, has he to take the shilling or has he to say to the patient, "Are you in receipt of National Assistance? Can you afford the shilling?"
What happens if the person who is knocked down has not a cent on him? Who chases round to collect the shillings which have not been collected in the outpatients' departments? I am only talking about the sort of things that may actually happen.

Mr. Crookshank: I am sorry to interrupt the most interesting speech which the hon. Lady is making, but the Amendment is on a very narrow point. It does not really deal with the matters about which she is speaking, interesting though they are. It deals with whether or not hospital managements committees and so on should be entitled to recover charges.

The Temporary Chairman: As I interpret the Amendment, the hon. Lady is quite right in making her case, as she believes it, on the inadvisability from her point of view of hospital management committees having to make a charge.

Mrs. Braddock: Thank you. Mr. Thomas; I will continue. I believe that what I am saying is completely relevant, and if the Minister interferes and says it is not, I must tell him that he is in as much ignorance as is his Parliamentary Secretary. It is mainly because I know

that there is such a terrific amount of ignorance in relation to this matter on the Government Front Bench and among those who are responsible for dealing with the Bill that I find it necessary to go into so much detail.
To take my case a little further, management committees and boards of governors have already had from the Minister a circular asking them to go into administrative details for the collection of this money. The circular does not say that a nurse or a doctor cannot be asked to do it, or that a clerk should be designated to do it, or that three eight-hour periods should be fixed—

Mr. Baird: Does my hon. Friend state that a circular has been sent out from the Minister before the Bill has been passed?

Mrs. Braddock: A circular has been sent to every management committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I should like the Minister to produce the circular. It has been before every management committee or board of governors so that advice may be given to officials on how those bodies desire this to be done. The Minister ought to read the circular to us when he replies so that we know exactly what has happened. I mentioned this to the Minister when I had a word with him about the situation, so he knew that I should refer to it.

Colonel Malcolm Stoddart-Scott: Why does not the hon. Lady produce it?

Mrs. Braddock: I am only an ordinary member of a management committee. Copies have not been sent to every member of management committees, but only to the secretaries. I do not think I am under any obligation to produce it. It is not my circular; it is the Minister's circular. He should be the one to produce it and read it so that we can see what the situation is.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: On a point of order. It is of supreme importance and interest to the Committee at this stage of the debate, in view of the statement of my hon. Friend, that the Ministry should state categorically whether or not such a circular has been distributed from his Department to the hospitals and, if so, that the circular should be read to the Committee.

The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order. The Minister will be speaking, if he so desires, in the course of the debate.

Mrs. Braddock: This circular must be within the knowledge of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, because many of them are Members of management committees and boards of governors, and if they have no knowledge of it, quite obviously they are not doing the job for which the Minister appointed them because, they are not attending their Committees.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: The hon. Lady is wrong. My right hon. Friend has not appointed a single member on this side of the Committee to any management committee.

Mrs. Braddock: The appalling ignorance—

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Name one.

Mrs. Braddock: —of people on the other side of the Committee is amazing. I get more staggered by it as the weeks go by.

Mr. Messer: The hon. and gallant Member, of course, is on a mere technicality.

Mrs. Braddock: Of course.

Mr. Messer: The Minister does not appoint members of management committees or members of regional boards, but he appoints members of boards of governors.

Mrs. Braddock: The hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to know, and if he wants me to go into a full statement of how regional boards, boards of governors, management committees, house committees, specialist committees, and so on are appointed, I am quite prepared to do so.

The Temporary Chairman: I think I can save the hon. Lady that trouble. It would be out of order.

Mrs. Braddock: I quite agree with you, Mr. Thomas, but these interjections of ignorance provoke one to use what knowledge one has to enlighten some of the very dull Members which we have on the opposite side of this Committee.
This circular requests committees to produce an administrative scheme so that

the collection of the shillings and the amounts for the appliances can be put into operation. Up to now all I have seen is a circular, but I know what has been in the circular, and I expect at the next meeting of my management committee I will have some indication of the steps that that particular committee is going to take to administer the scheme.
What I am trying to point out to the Minister is that if the Government proceed with this Bill, then the right hon. Gentleman cannot leave it to individual administrators or to each individual outpatient department of the hospital service. It will be a State receipt which will be issued, and it will have to be something that will be legal at post offices throughout the country. It will have to be easily discernible, and something which a person can use to recover his or her money if he or she is away from the area in which they live.
Let us get this thing in complete order, because it is so terribly important. If a person is away from home he will get a prescription and a receipt, but according to the Parliamentary Secretary that person can only obtain the 1s. back again from the post office at which he draws his supplementary pension. That means there has got to be a national receipt which covers every section of the service so that an official receipt will be used. It will have to be a receipt that has definitely been issued by the Minister of Health, and receipt which will enable a person to reclaim the money for a prescription if he is getting National Assistance. The National Assistance Board will have to give the House at some time in its accounts an assessment of the amount of its receipts and the amount of shillings it pays out on top of its ordinary National Assistance to people who reclaim the shilling for a prescription.
9.45 p.m.
Because this is so far-reaching, let me put another case of a person who goes to an out-patients' department and gets a prescription and has to get it refunded. What about the person who is not in receipt of National Assistance? What about the person who has only a 30s. pension, because he is living with relatives, because he is paying no rent. I speak from experience. I kept my father at my home for 10 years without a halfpenny except his pension. He died at


83. He had no National Assistance. There must be any amount of cases of that sort. How will they reclaim their shilling? Are they to pay that shilling out of the 30s. pension? If they attend a hospital and continue through the outpatients' department to get their prescription and require to have it returned at the post office, no provision has been made.
We had progressed so far in the welfare state. We had taught people that they could get their pensions, whether supplementary or State pension for which they pay, through the Post Office on a book so that the person next to them would not know whether they were getting supplementation or not. It is a most degrading thing, one of the lowest things a Tory Minister could do in relation to national health, once again to make it necessary for a person in receipt of National Assistance, in order to get a receipt for his shilling prescription from the out-patient department, to have to say to the doctor or the dispenser or the clerk or the nurse or the sister, "Please give me an official receipt with my name and National Health number on it. I am in receipt of supplementation from the Assistance Board and the only way I can get my shilling returned is to produce the official receipt which the Ministry of Health say I must have to supply to the post office at which I draw my pension."
To what depths have we sunk in relation to this matter. It is appalling. The Minister may laugh. I hope he will never be in the position of having to do that sort of thing. I would not wish it on my worst enemy. I would not wish it on one or two of the people on the other side of the Committee whom I would choke at any time I had the opportunity of so doing.
We shall find another tendency. The medical profession has been making efforts, more so since this scheme started, to get a quick turnover of beds so that all those people who need medical attention in the hospitals can get it as quickly as possible. The doctors will say that rather than go to all the administrative trouble necessary to issue a prescription and a receipt where necessary, they will keep the patient in for an extra couple of weeks to continue or finish the treatment they require instead of giving them

continuation treatment in the out-patient department. That would add to the hospital costs and to the Health Service costs many times more than the £250,000 that the Minister anticipates saving.
The Amendment can be quite easily dealt with. It would save time and difficulty, and it would place, as the Minister is entitled to be able to do, on the specialist and medical profession the responsibility of deciding whether a person needs to continue attending at an out-patient department and needs to continue being prescribed for medicines through that department. That whole lot could be cut out, and the Minister would save all the vast amount of administration that his permanent officials will tell him would be necessary, if he accepts the Amendment and gives to the medical profession the trust that we have given them up to the present, by saying that if they find it necessary a person can be discharged from hospital because the bed is needed for someone much more critically ill.
If that patient can be discharged and can continue to be treated and dispensed for through the out-patient departments in the hospitals controlled by the management committees and boards of governors; if bed accommodation for inpatients can be saved by referring someone to an out-patient department instead of being put into a bed, so that he can get his prescriptions through that department; if the Minister continues to say this and to put the trust in the medical profession, I am certain that the saving to the Service generally would be very much more than the £250,000 that he anticipates collecting from these charges.
The hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod), who sent me the postcard, has been waiting desperately to say that I made a statement on the Bill in 1949 but that when it came to the Division I voted with my party. Because this has been stated on the public platform, the hon. Member ought to have followed up his statement by saying that the reason I so voted was because my party and Government made a concession in relation to the charges. They said that they would reconsider them in 1954. That concession, I agree, was hard wrung out, but it was wrung out.

The Temporary Chairman: I have been generous to the hon. Lady in the last few moments, because while she may feel deeply on this question, it has nothing to do with the Amendment.

Mrs. Braddock: I quite agree, Mr. Thomas, but I could not resist the opportunity.
I hope that the points I have put to the Minister will be carefully considered. I should like him tonight to be able to say that a case has been made out for including the Amendment in the Bill and that no charge shall be made for dispensing medicines through out-patient departments to people who go there, instead of going into hospital, for continuation treatment, or who are released from hospital and continue treatment. I am certain that if the Minister does this, he will find that the very great administrative responsibilities which otherwise would be entailed to the hospital management committees in administering the scheme—and the Estimates have been cut so fine that it will not be possible, even if it is necessary, to take on extra staff to deal with this administration—will be very much reduced.
I hope sincerely that the Minister will accept the Amendment and will exclude from the payment in respect of drugs and medicines those people who attend outpatient departments of various hospitals under the different sections of the Health Scheme. I assure him that by so doing, bad though his administrative difficulties will be in the way of administration through the medical profession and the Post Office, he will, at any rate, relieve the hospital management committees, the staffs, doctors, nurses and out-patient departments, of the very extra responsibility of collecting a few paltry shillings from patients who attend out-patient departments.

Mr. Crookshank: I have listened, very attentively of course, to the speech of the hon. Lady, and I am much indebted because she has brought out a number of points worthy of study, which will be studied. But we are dealing with a very narrow Amendment and, of course, it is a wrecking Amendment, because the Committee have already accepted subsection (1) of this Clause, which says:
regulations may provide for the making and recovery,
of charges.
The hon. Lady proposes instead of that to insert a decision that:
No hospital management committee, board of management or board of governors shall be required
to make any charges under this scheme. But they are the only people who could set in motion the making or recovery of charges and, therefore, the Amendment would contradict what we have done in the last few days.
This Clause is only an empowering Clause. The effective action will be taken by regulation, as was done on the much wider issue—the prescription issue—in the Measure of the Labour Government which was enacted. This Clause is to bring the hospital section of the problem into line with what is already on the Statute Book, and when this Clause is passed and the Bill becomes an Act there will be power under this Measure to make similar regulations mutatis mutandis to those empowered in the original Act.
Under subsection (1) we have already granted that, and the only question I have to answer—as I say, I will note what the hon. Lady has said—is to deal with the actual Amendment, which says:
No hospital management committee, board of management or board of governors shall be required to make or recover any charge under this section.
If charges are to be made, of course one or other of those bodies are the people to deal with them; there is nobody else so far as the hospital world is concerned. One or other of these bodies according to different circumstances, will be concerned with the making and recovery of charges, and it will be in the regulations. That is the place to lay down in each particular case the particular authority to do this work.
Broadly speaking, it will be the hospital management committee which will be responsible for the making of the charges. I know that the hon. Lady does not want them to collect, but this Amendment poses the question, supposing there are to be charges, who is to collect them?

10.0 p.m.

Mrs. Braddock: If the right hon. Gentleman accepts this Amendment, it pre-supposes, not there will be nobody to collect, but that they will have no opportunity of collecting.

Mr. Crookshank: Exactly. It is entirely a wrecking Amendment, and for that reason I ask the Committee to reject it.

Mr. Hector McNeil: Would the right hon. Gentleman meet us on the point made by my hon. Friend with reference to the circular? I must make it plain I do not think it was necessarily irregular; I think it would be quite often the case that instructions might be sent out saying, in the event of an enactment taking place, that these administrative arrangements should be made. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree, however, that he would not want to leave the Committee at any disadvantage compared with a management committee or a board of governors or a regional committee.
It would be very interesting because this dilemma which my hon. Friend has presented to the Minister is very real. Anyone who has ever been in an outpatient's department, either as a patient or having some administrative responsibility knows that the pace of an outpatients' department is frequently conditional on the clerical work which can be carried through. I will not strain the patience of the Committee by recalling what actually happens but it is a very difficult job to ensure that the records are kept coincidentally with the presentation of the patients.
Who is the right hon. Gentleman expecting to be designated by the board of management to do this further clerical job? As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) says, how is it to be done? Must the patient have with him or her a ration book, an Assistance Board book—

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I am wondering what is the position. I thought the Minister was in possession of the Floor, and now the right hon. Gentleman is making a statement.

Mr. McNeil: I did not think so. I thought that for the moment the Minister had concluded his speech.

Mr. Crookshank: The right hon. Gentleman had asked a question and I was going to answer it.

Mr. McNeil: Perhaps I can explain my anxiety to see this circular and have

explained the procedure which the right hon. Gentleman anticipates will follow from it should the Committee and the House enact in the fashion proposed. Is a patient to present himself at the outpatients' department of a hospital and satisfy the authorities there not that he is ill or sick or crippled but that he has a number in his pocket? Otherwise we shall have a black market traffic in these receipts. Some kind of number or identification must be placed on a receipt, or we are putting a premium on this business. For example, let us imagine that I am carrying a pension book and that here are my right hon. and hon. Friends, none of whom carries a book, but who all need prescriptions. It is a great temptation to me, being already in receipt of Assistance, to have a little "side business" with the receipts.
I assume that the right hon. Gentleman has looked at that and that it will not happen, but that there will be some identification, presumably by a number of some kind on the receipt. But is a poor, aged sick woman, coming to an out-patients' department to be sent home without a prescription because she has not a shilling, or because she cannot identify herself? What is to happen to a man carried in, having had a minor injury late at night? That sometimes happens, even to hon. Members of this House. The man in the casualty department says to him, "You had better have a sedative." Are we really expecting the injured man to provide a number in those circumstances?

Mr. P. W. Donner: On a point of order. We were listening to a speech by the Minister of Health. In 20 years' experience of this House, I cannot recall a previous occasion when a right hon. Gentleman has not only interrupted a Minister of the Crown but has proceeded to speak at length.

The Deputy-Chairman: I have only just come into the Committee. That is why I asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was in possession of the Floor. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman speaking from the Opposition Front Benches was asking a question. If the Minister has concluded his speech, then the right hon. Gentleman is in order.

Mr. McNeil: I do not want to embarrass anyone. I have a number of points to put. If the hon. Gentleman thinks


that his right hon. Friend is being disadvantaged, of course I will give way; but if the hon. Gentleman comes into the Committee at this time of night because he has nothing else to do, he had better be quiet and not criticise the behaviour of people who have been trying to improve this Bill for a long time.

The Deputy-Chairman: If right hon. and hon. Member will address the Chair instead of one another, it will be better.

Mr. McNeil: I think that it is still competent for me to say to the hon. Gentleman that it is not right for him to come in so late, because he could not go to the picture house or somewhere else, and try to tell this Committee, which has now spent some considerable time on this Bill, how it should conduct its business.
I do not want to be cross with the Minister about this. Whenever he wants to intervene, naturally I will follow Committee procedure and give way. It will be of interest to see how the circular is directed. The right hon. Gentleman has trailed himself round with the crutch that the proposal in this Bill was one which a previous Government introduced, but even if that crutch is of great comfort to him, that Measure does not cover the out-patients at all; it only covers drugs.
This question goes much further and will inflict perhaps greater hardship. It is a distinct extension. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will also tell us how he means to separate the drugs which are obtained by prescription from drugs administered on the premises. We have discussed this question before. We have had a kind of assurance on it. It is fairly difficult to understand, though I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to inform us upon it.
Finally, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is a fair assumption that he has reason to believe that there are abuses in the out-patients' departments? It is difficult to believe that there are, and it is unfair to a noble profession, and the higher ranks of a noble profession, to leave unquestioned any inference that that is so. The right hon. Gentleman admitted to us at an earlier stage that he had no evidence of abuse of another kind, although he had heard it said that there was. Unless he has any evidence, he must make it plain that there is no abuse here and that he is satisfied that these ladies

and gentlemen are discharging their professional obligations in the normal economic and efficient way, and that this is only a fiscal device which has nothing at all to do with the issue of drugs and medicines.

Mr. Desmond Donnelly: I have listened to the argument put forward by the Minister of Health. At one stage I thought of asking leave to move to report Progress to give the right hon. Gentleman the chance of having a look at an out-patients' department in a hospital. I think that the Committee is taking a rather unfortunate advantage of his complete lack of knowledge of this aspect of hospital organisation. I think that there is a general sympathy on this side of the Committee for the right hon. Gentleman in the fact that he really does not know what a hospital out-patients' department is like, has no experience how it works and has little or no experience of the type of people using it.
The right hon. Gentleman, in his remarks, described this as a wrecking Amendment. I do not know whether that is a reflection on the Chair or not, but I am sure that the Chair would not have thought of calling an Amendment which it considered to be a wrecking Amendment. I think that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) has quite rightly said, this is an Amendment of great substance and importance, affecting a very large section of the community, and a very large number of those who use the National Health Service.
The right hon. Gentleman has tried to ride off on the very narrow point that this Amendment was simply dealing with a particular aspect of the Health Service in respect of which the position created by the passing of the 1949 Act was being regularised, but that really does not affect the merits or demerits of this Amendment. It is no answer to the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend, and at no stage in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman did he make a single, concrete intelligent argument in answer to my hon. Friend's very sensible, detailed and documented case.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will study very carefully what my hon. Friend has said, because she has great experience in the working of the hospital service, and has rendered great service to the


hospital management committee on which she serves, and, therefore, has a particularly distinguished record in this respect. I think the right hon. Gentleman should bow to the superior knowledge and contribution which has been made to the Health Service by my hon. Friend, and that he should treat her arguments seriously. We therefore ask him to give some more sensible answer, instead of trying to ride off on a very narrow point.
Let me come now to one or two other points which my hon. Friend did not cover. The problem of hospital outpatients is made considerably worse because of the shortage of hospital beds, which is particularly true in the rural areas and in the areas where hospital building programmes before the war were completely neglected. It is particularly true in Wales, and I remember Questions being asked from time to time by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) about the numbers of people on the waiting lists of hospitals both in Cardiff and in other parts of Wales.
The cause of that difficulty was the neglect of those areas by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends in the years between the wars, and this problem is doubly acute where these hospitals are very short staffed and inadequately serviced. Many people who use outpatients' departments simply do so because the physical limitations of the hospital available in their area renders it necessary for them to go to another hospital in some other area which is better served—like Bournemouth, or some other better-off part of Britain, in which a completely different situation exists, and where it is very much easier for people to get into hospital.
If the Clause is approved as it stands, and if the Amendment is not accepted, those people who live in the areas which the right hon. Gentleman and his friends neglected in the years between the wars will suffer even worse than the people who live in the better-off areas in Britain and who are able to reap the benefits under the National Health Service which their compatriots, perhaps suffering from exactly the same illnesses, are not able to receive. The right hon. Gentleman should really look at this question of inequality as between different parts of Britain. It really is not fair that people

who live in areas where there is a bad hospital service should be worse off than those who live in areas where the hospital service is good and who do not have to pay.
The hospital out-patient departments are very extensively used in the rural areas, where people have to make long journeys from villages in remote areas to the centres and market towns, and, when they go to the out-patients' departments, they have to pay fares on buses or other means of transport. Are they going to be doubly penalised through having to pay for the services under this Bill as it stands?
10.15 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are busy putting up the petrol duty so as to put up the fares of people in rural areas. They are trying to penalise them in every conceivable way, and by resisting this Amendment they are doubly penalising people living in the scattered rural areas, who not only have to pay the extra fares to get to the hospital, but also have to pay the charges because the hospitals in those areas have been neglected in the past.
It affects those people in another way as well. Working people who have to attend the out-patient departments of hospitals have to lose time from work in order to do so. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman understands what that means. I hope he does. I also hope, as my hon. Friend said on an earlier point, that he will never have to lose time from work in order to attend the out-patient department of a hospital. It is unjust that people who have to lose time from work in this way should have extra charges placed upon them in these circumstances.
The right hon. Gentleman in his chop-logic arguments about narrow points has not made a single attempt to answer these human problems which face the people today. Perhaps he does not care; perhaps he does not understand, or, again, perhaps it is because he is simply determined that this Bill shall go through regardless of the wishes of the people and regardless of the difficulties it will create.
I come now to another point. One of the most extensive uses of the outpatients' departments of hospitals in South Wales is by people suffering from


pneumoconiosis. The right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends are busy asking for recruits to the mining industry at the present time. Are they proposing to reward those who have served the mining industry so well in the past by—

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid the hon. Member is going very wide of the Amendment, which only asks that hospital management committees and other bodies shall not be required to recover the charges.

Mr. Donnelly: With respect, Mr. Hopkin Morris, I am advised by those who helped my hon. Friend and myself to draft this Amendment that it refers to charges made to people who attend hospital out-patient departments. One of the largest sections of users of these out-patients' departments are members of the mining community.

The Deputy-Chairman: This Amendment simply says that no hospital management committee, board of management or board of governors shall be required to collect the money.

Mr. Donnelly: I am objecting to the collection of the money from people suffering from pneumoconiosis. This is a very real problem. Here we have a great industry on which the whole future of the country depends, and at the present moment we are confronted with the problem of getting more people into the mines. What hope have we of recruiting men to the mining industry if those thinking of entering it have no security regarding what will happen to them if they become disabled? Under these proposals, the people in the mining industry will be put back to the position that obtained before 1910. Is that the way in which the right hon. Gentleman hopes to get recruits to the mines?

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: On a point of order. Is the hon. Gentleman going to be allowed to go through every possible disease which can affect the human body?

The Deputy-Chairman: What this Amendment proposes is that the duty of collecting the charges shall not fall upon a particular set of bodies.

Mr. Donnelly: Perhaps I may be allowed to continue because I have no intention of entering into an argument

with the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson). Whilst I appreciate his great interest in many other subjects, I do not wish to compare those who have to use the out-patient departments of hospitals with those who drink too much beer. That would be narrowing the argument too much.
I would rather deal with the very real and important problem which affects the whole of South Wales, and although the hon. Member for Farnham is not a Member for South Wales—he never would be for a South Wales constituency for they would not have him—he should realise that this Amendment is very important to sufferers from pneumoconiosis and it is very important that they should not be charged by hospital management committees.

The Deputy-Chairman: That may be true but it is not relevant to the Amendment, which says that charges shall not be made or collected by certain bodies, no matter where the bodies are.

Mr. Donnelly: I am grateful to you, Mr. Hopkin Morris. I do not wish to pursue the point any further. I think the Minister should have been able to grasp it by now.
I will come to the problem which has been troubling me during the whole of the Committee stage of this Bill. In the Library the other day, I came across a publication called "Campaign Guide for 1951" which has a section on the Health Service. I understand it is published by the Conservative Central Office. There was also a "Campaign Guide for 1950" and it is important to note the year because these things change from time to time.
Page 227 of this publication is devoted to so-called Socialist misrepresentation, under the heading "Socialist Misrepresentation Answered." It states:
Socialist propaganda on health matters invariably contains four flagrant examples of misrepresentation.
It says that one of these misrepresentations is that a Conservative Government would cut the National Health Service. But this Clause, unamended, would cut the Service.
Page 230 of the publication states, under the heading "Conservative Policy on the National Health Service":
The attitude of a future Conservative Government to the Health Service is made


clear in ' This is the road.' We pledge ourselves to maintain and improve the Health Service.
Where will the right hon. Gentleman go if he commits political perjury on behalf of his party in this matter? I should hate to see his photograph appearing on posters under the heading, "Wanted for Political Murder."

Mr. Anthony Fell: On a point of order. Is not all this wildly irrelevant?

The Deputy-Chairman: I have already pointed out what is in order on this Amendment.

Mr. Donnelly: I think we should know where we are going because the Minister talked about this being an empowering Clause, and the right hon. Gentleman tried to brush it off as though it were a relatively unimportant matter. I think the Committee ought to know where we are going when we have this kind of political duplicity. We have no faith in people who cannot keep their word to the electorate. We have no faith in statements made by the right hon. Gentleman to this Committee unless we see them on the Statute Book.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange, has made a very strong case on behalf of a very large section of the community who make great use of this Service. This Clause as it stands is despicable and could only have been introduced by this disgusting Government who I hope will be dismissed by a disillusioned electorate.

Mr. Crookshank: I do not propose to deal with the discourtesies inherent in the speech of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly), but I hope I shall be allowed to answer questions put to me. It had slipped my mind, and I apologise to the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), but, as has been quite rightly pointed out by a right hon. Gentleman opposite, when there is prospect of legislation or enactment, it frequently happens that the responsible authorities who would have to administer it are taken into consultation beforehand, on the natural assumption that there is nothing binding—it depends whether the Bill becomes an Act or not. It would be very reprehensible if it were

the other way round and if an Act were passed which put upon public bodies certain statutory requirements about which they knew nothing.
The circular to which the hon. Lady referred is merely that sort of document, which suggested to recipients that there was before Parliament a Bill as a result of which it was proposed to impose certain charges, and asking whether they would carefully consider what would be the best administrative arrangements within their own sphere. One hospital might want to do the work in one way and another hospital in another way. It merely suggested that they should take advice amongst themselves about what could best be done, and said that if they required any further help and advice from myself or my officers it would be forthcoming. It was the normal sort of circular sent round in the normal course of events when legislation is passing through Parliament. I hope that satisfies the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady who asked me about it, and I am sorry I omitted to mention it in the first place.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: rose in his place, and claimed to move,"That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

Mr. I. O. Thomas: (seated and covered): On a point of order. I wish to seek your guidance on the appropriateness or admissibility of a Minister coming on to the Government Front Bench, having been absent for the whole of the time during which this matter has been debated, and at the first opportunity after re-entering the Chamber moving the Closure. Is it in order for that to be accepted by yourself as Deputy-Chairman?

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of order, and therefore does not fall within my jurisdiction.

Mr. Thomas: You say it does not fall within your jurisdiction, but it certainly fell within your jurisdiction to accept the Motion when it was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. As it was obviously within your jurisdiction to accept that Motion, I now ask whether it was appropriate that you should accept it.

Ayes, 277; Noes, 258.

Division No. 84.]
AYES
[10.25 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Foster, John
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Maclean, Fitzroy


Alport, C. J. M.
Gage, C. H.
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Galbraith, Cmdr, T. D. (Pollok)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Gammans, L. D.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)


Arbuthnot, John
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth Sutton)
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Baker, P. A. D.
Godber, J. B.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr J. M.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)


Banks, Col. C.
Gough, C. F. H.
Maude, Angus


Barber, A. P. L.
Gower, H. R.
Maudling, R.


Baxter, A. B.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Grimond, J.
Mellor, Sir John


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Molson, A. H. E.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Harden, J. R. E.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nicholls, Harmar


Birch, Nigel
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Bishop, F. P.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Black, C. W.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hay, John
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Bossom, A. C.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Nugent, G. R. H.


Bowen, E. R.
Heald, Sir Lionel
Nutting, Anthony


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Heath, Edward
Oakshott, H. D.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Odey, G. W.


Braine, B. R.
Higgs, J. M. C.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Osborne, C.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Partridge, E.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hollis, M. C.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Bullard, D. G.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hopkinson, Henry
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Burden, F. F. A.
Horobin, I. M.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Butcher, H. W.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Pitman, I. J.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Powell, J. Enoch


Carson, Hon. E.
Howard, Greville (St, Ives)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Chanson, H.
Hurd, A. R.
Profumo, J. D.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Raikes, H. V.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clarke (E'b'rgh W)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Cole, Norman
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Redmayne, E.


Colegate, W. A.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Renton, D. L. M.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Jennings, R.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Robertson, Sir David


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Cranborne, Viscount
Kaberry, D.
Robson-Brown, W.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Keeling, Sir Edward
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Roper, Sir Harold


Crouch, R. F.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Lambton, Viscount
Russell, R. S.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Leather, E. H. C.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Davidson, Viscountess
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Scott, R. Donald


Deedes, W. F.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lindsay, Martin
Shepherd, William


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Linstead, H. N.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Donner, P. W.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Snadden, W. McN.


Duthie, W. S.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Soames, Capt. C.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Low, A. R. W.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Elliet, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Stevens, G. P.


Erroll, F. J.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Fell, A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Finlay, Graeme
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Fisher, Nigel
McAdden, S. J.
Storey, S.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
McCallum, Major. D.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Fort, R.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Summers, G. S.







Sutcliffe, H.
Turton, R. H.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Vane, W. M. F.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Teeling, W.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Vosper, D. F.
Wills, G.


Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Walker-Smith, D. C.
Wood, Hon. R.


Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
York, C.


Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.



Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Watkinson, H. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tilney, John
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)
Brigadier Mackeson and


Touche, G. C.
Wellwood, W.
Mr. Studholme.


Turner, H. F. L.
White, Baker (Canterbury)





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Field, W. J.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Adams, Richard
Fienburgh, W.
McLeavy, F.


Albu, A. H.
Finch, H. J.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Follick, M.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Foot, M. M.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Awbery, S. S.
Forman, J. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Baird, J.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Balfour, A.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Manuel, A. C.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Gibson, C. W.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Bence, C. R.
Glanville, James
Mayhew, C. P.


Benn, Wedgwood
Gooch, E. G.
Mellish, R. J.


Benson, G.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Messer, F.


Beswick, F.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mikardo, Ian


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mitchison, G. R.


Bing, G. H. C.
Grey, C. F.
Monslow, W.


Blackburn, F.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Moody, A. S.


Blenkinsop, A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.


Blyton, W. R.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Morley, R.


Boardman, H.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Bowden, H. W.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Mort, D. L.


Bowles, F. G.
Hamilton, W. W.
Moyle, A.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hannan, W.
Mulley, F. W.


Brockway, A. F.
Hargreaves, A.
Murray, J. D.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Nally, W.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hastings, S.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hayman, F. H.
O'Brien, T.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Oliver, G. H.


Burke, W. A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
O'Neill, M. (Mid-Ulster)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Herbison, Miss M.
Oswald, T.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Padley, W. E.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hobson, C. R.
Paget, R. T.


Carmichael, J.
Holman, P.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Champion, A. J.
Houghton, Douglas
Pannell, Charles


Chapman, W. D.
Hoy, J. H.
Pargiter, G. A.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hubbard, T. F.
Parker, J.


Clunie, J.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Paton, J.


Cocks, F. S.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pearson, A.


Collick, P. H.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Peart, T. F.


Cook, T. F.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Porter, G.


Cove, W. G.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Proctor, W. T.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Pryde, D. J.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Rankin, John


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Reeves, J.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Rhodes, H.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Richards, R.


Deer, G.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Delargy, H. J.
Keenan, W.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Donnelly, D. L.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Driberg, T. E. N.
King, Dr. H. M.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Ross, William


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Royle, C.


Edelman, M.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Lewis, Arthur
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lindgren, G. S.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Logan, D. G.
Short, E. W.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
MacColl, J. E.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Ewart, R.
McGhee, H. G.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Fernyhough, E.
McInnes, J.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)







Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Wigg, George


Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Snow, J. W.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Sorensen, R. W.
Thurtle, Ernest
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Timmons, J.
Williams, David (Neath)


Sparks, J. A.
Tomney, F.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Steele, T.
Turner-Samuels, M.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Wallace, H. W.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Watkins, T. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Stross, Dr. Barnett
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Wells, William (Walsall)
Wyatt, W. L.


Swingler, S. T.
West, D. G.
Yates, V. F.


Sylvester, G. O.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)



Taylor, John (West Lothian)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Mr. Popplewell and




Mr. Wilkins.

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 259; Noes, 276.

Pargiter, G. A.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Wallace, H. W.


Parker, J.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Watkins, T. E.


Paton, J.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Pearson, A.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Peart, T. F.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Snow, J. W.
West, D. G.


Porter, G.
Sorensen, R. W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Sparks, J. A.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Proctor, W. T.
Steele, T.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Pryde, D. J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wigg, George


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Rankin, John
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Reeves, J.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Stross, Dr. Barnett
Williams, David (Neath)


Reid, William (Camlachie)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Rhodes, H.
Swingler, S. T.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Richards, R.
Sylvester, G. O.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Ross, William
Thomas, Iorworth (Rhondda, W.)
Wyatt, W. L.


Royle, C.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Yates, V. F.


Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Thurtle, Ernest
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Timmons, J.



Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Tomney, F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Turner-Samuels, M.
Mr. Popplewell and


Short, E. W.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Mr. Wilkins.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Crookshank, Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Alport, C. J. M.
Crouch, R. F.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Arbuthnot, John
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Davidson, Viscountess
Hollis, M. C.


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Deedes, W. F.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)


Baker, P. A. D.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hopkinson, Henry


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Banks, Col. C.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Horobin, I. M.


Barber, A. P. L.
Donner, P. W.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Baxter, A. B.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Duthie, W. S.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hurd, A. R.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Erroll, F. J.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Fell, A.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Finlay, Graeme
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Fisher, Nigel
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Birch, Nigel
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)


Bishop, F. P.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Jennings, R.


Black, C. W.
Fort, R.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Foster, John
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Bossom, A. C.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Kaberry, D.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Gage, C. H.
Keeling, Sir Edward


Boyle, Sir Edward
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Braine, B. R.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lambert, Hon. G.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Gammans, L. D.
Lambton, Viscount


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Leather, E. H. C.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Godber, J. B.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)


Bullard, D. G.
Gough, C. F. H.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Gower, H. R.
Lindsay, Martin


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Linstead, H. N.


Burden, F. F. A.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Llewellyn, D. T.


Butcher, H. W.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Carson, Hon. E.
Harden, J. R. E.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)


Channon, H.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Low, A. R. W.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Cole, Norman
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Colegate, W. A.
Harvie-Walt, Sir George
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hay, John
McAdden, S. J.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
McCallum, Major D.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Heald, Sir Lionel
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Cranborne, Viscount
Heath, Edward
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)







Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Studholme, H. G.


Maclean, Fitzroy
Pilkington, Capt R. A.
Summers, G. S.


MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Pitman, I. J.
Sutcliffe, H.


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Powell, J. Enoch
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Teeling, W.


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Profumo, J. D.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Raikes, H. V.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Marples, A. E.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Renton, D. L. M.
Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Roberts, Peter (Healey)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Maude, Angus
Robertson, Sir David
Tilney, John


Maudling, R.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool S.)
Touche, G. C.


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr S. L. C.
Robson-Brown, W.
Turner, H. F. L.


Medlicott, Brig. F.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Turton, R. H.


Mellor, Sir John
Roper, Sir Harold
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Molson, A. H. E.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Vane, W. M. F.


Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Russell, R. S.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Vosper, D. F.


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Nicholls, Harmer
Schofield, Lt.-Col W. (Rochdale)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Scott, R. Donald
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Watkinson, H. A.


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Shepherd, William
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Wellwood, W.


Nugent, G. R. H.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Nutting, Anthony
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Oakshott, H. D.
Snadden, W. McN.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Odey, G. W.
Soames, Capt. C.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Wills, G.


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Stevens, G. P.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Wood, Hon. R.


Osborne, C.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
York, C.


Partridge, E.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.



Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.
Storey, S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Perkins, W. R. D.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Major Conant and




Mr. Redmayne.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. McNeil: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I do this for the obvious reason that we are at quite a convenient point in the discussion on Clause 1, and I certainly imagine that it would be for the convenience of hon. Members to have some indication of the Government's intentions at this stage.

Mr. Crookshank: I do not quite know why the right hon. Gentleman says that this is a convenient place more than any other place. It is not all that convenient. We have not dealt with the last Amendment to page 1, line 9, of the Clause—there is one more of that kind. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not press the matter now. It would be just as well to go on a little longer anyhow.

Mr. McNeil: I am indebted to the right hon. Gentleman, and I do not want to press the matter but, as he knows, many of my hon. and right hon. Friends have to depend upon the public conveyances—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There is nothing at all unreasonable in that. Do not let hon. Gentlemen opposite get

excited or amused. My hon. Friends are capable of staying here as long as is necessary; but we have perhaps had a more agreeable run than hitherto on this Bill, and without pushing the right hon. Gentleman too far in this matter, may I ask whether he is not prepared to add a little more to what he has said?

Mr. Crookshank: The run may have been a little better, but not much better and not much more speedy. I appreciate the point which the right hon. Gentleman made, but I would ask the Committee to carry on a little further, for we still have a long way to go, and the Sitting was much delayed at the start by an unexpectedly long debate on the Easter adjournment Motion.

Mr. E. Shinwell: I have not shared in the pleasures of this debate but, like other hon. Members, not to say right hon. Gentlemen, I am anxious to get home. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear."] I am glad to have elicited applause from hon. Members opposite. I gather that they are anxious not to miss the last train or bus—by that I mean those who have no other conveyance.
My only reason for speaking is that I want to elicit from the Minister what he means when he suggests that we should go a little further. Does he mean that he wants to extract from the Committee another one or two Amendments, either Government or Opposition Amendments; or does he mean that he intends to go on for another hour? I address the right hon. Gentleman in the most reasonable frame of mind, at any rate at this stage. There are my opinions. If the right hon. Gentleman does not like them, I can change them.
But I suggest that it would suit the convenience of the Committee if we could gather from the Minister what his intentions are. We are anxious to facilitate the proceedings on this Measure. The Patronage Secretary advises me to get on with it. [An HON. MEMBER: "With the Amendment."] I understand from an hon. Member on the other side that the Government want to dispose of another Amendment. Having done that, do we gather that it is intended to report Progress? All this is so much in the dark. If the right hon. Gentleman could provide a little more illumination, I am sure that it would be helpful to the Committee.

Mr. Crookshank: I think that if we were to pass to the Amendment instead of discussing this matter the Committee would not be so much in the dark. It was last night that the light failed. We are not so much in the dark tonight. Although it has been agreeable to hear the voice of the right hon. Gentleman in this debate, and such an unexpected voice, I hope the Committee will agree that we had better see how we get along; then, if necessary, Progress can be reported, and further inquiries made. The optimum would be to get the first Clause. I daresay that that would be pressing the Committee too far. That is why I think we ought to see how many of these comparatively unimportant Amendments that are coming along can be dealt with. We could then see where we stand. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will now withdraw his Motion.

Mr. McNeil: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Hastings: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, at the end, to insert:
(2) No charge shall be made under this section in respect of any drug, medicine, or appliance supplied to any person for whom residential accommodation is being provided under Part III of the National Assistance Act, 1948, and who is not paying the standard rate fixed for that accommodation under section twenty-two of that Act.
This is a simple, straightforward Amendment. All it seeks to do is to absolve certain classes from payment for out-patients' services under this Bill. They are people who are not paying the standard rate and are accommodated in residential institutions run under the National Assistance Act.
Under the National Assistance Act welfare authorities are empowered, to use the words of the Act,
to provide residential accommodation for persons who by reason of age, infirmity or any other circumstances are in need of care which is not otherwise available to them.
Many welfare authorities in different parts of the country are providing admirable homes for aged patients. I have visited lately in London two such homes, in Lansbury and at Woodberry Down. These homes take in old people, some of whom pay the full charge. Most of them are old age pensioners or are people in receipt of retirement allowances or payments under the National Assistance Act.
As regards those in receipt of payments under those pension schemes and the National Assistance Act, what happens in practice is this. They are assessed to pay for their accommodation and so on, but not in every case. So far as I am aware, some money is left to them, usually about 5s. a week, with which to provide the ordinary common necessities of life and their clothes. So far as those who are in receipt of National Assistance are concerned, the Minister has told us that he is to exempt them from payments under the Act.
What I want to suggest is that under exactly similar circumstances in these particular homes are individuals who are receiving pensions—some of them old age pensions and some retirement pensions. I want to suggest that they should be treated in the same way as they are in exactly the same financial position. If the Minister would grant that, it would case their position very much and make


the whole organisation of these homes very much easier, because what has happened is that for the most part these are oldish people, very often more or less infirm, and they have great difficulty in going to collect their own pensions in many cases.
The same applies to public assistance payments. Very often those who run the homes help them a good deal by collecting these payments, and taking what may be considered necessary in payment for their residential accommodation, giving them a certain amount of pocket money.
11.0 p.m.
If it is insisted that these old people must go through all the paraphernalia of showing their exact position financially, then making application, and then getting back the money they have paid for prescriptions or for appliances, that will complicate things very much. I suggest to the Minister that it would be a nice gesture if he could see his way to treating this relatively small class of deserving people, all of whom are very poor, in the way I have suggested.

Mr. Crookshank: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I did not hear all his earlier observations because there was so much noise in the Committee. [An HON. MEMBER: "On your side."] I am not attributing blame, I am merely making a statement. However, I think I understood the point on which he was addressing us, as to how to deal with residents in welfare homes.
To some extent the Amendment is misconceived, if I may respectfully say so, because persons in these homes who would require medicines would be getting them on prescriptions from general practitioners and not as out-patients of hospitals. So they are outside this Bill and dealt with in other legislation. This only deals with out-patients.
In so far as they require appliances, I am afraid I do not see how one could justifiably exclude them from the charge which would fall upon them. It is quite true that a considerable proportion—I am told it may be as much as a third of those resident in these homes—are National Assistance patients. If they are, then they are automatically exempt. With regard to the others, should there be any case of hardship, they will come under the general hardship provisions which I have explained previously, but the bulk of the

cases will be prescriptions under the general practitioner services, and that is outside the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment.

Mrs. Braddock: A number of these people are in receipt of pensions only. The welfare authority is empowered to take from their pensions an amount of money, which leaves them with only 5s. They will have no way of recovering the money because they are not in receipt of National Assistance. How, then, will they be able to recover any shilling they pay if they get a prescription from their ordinary doctor?

Mr. Crookshank: I say this subject to further consideration, but one of the factors to be taken into account, as I said in reply to some questions the other day, is that what is to be left to these people after the pension rate is raised is a matter which will have to be considered in the light of the raising of the pensions, which is to be done under the Bill to be introduced by my right hon. Friend. Therefore, 5s. is not necessarily a static figure. It is important to bear that in mind. If there is any question of hardship, then the Assistance Board can give them help.

Mrs. Braddock: It cannot.

Mr. Crookshank: In the general case.

Mrs. Braddock: No.

Mr. Crookshank: Let me finish my sentence. In the general case of hardship recourse can be had to the Assistance Board.

Mrs. Braddock: No.

Mr. Crookshank: These cases are not on all fours with the normal Assistance Board case. Does that satisfy the hon. Lady?

Mrs. Braddock: indicated assent.

Mr. Crookshank: I began the sentence the other way round. Therefore, I agree that we would have to see that they are fitted in. That is the whole point, and I recognise it is a little difficult. But, of course, it applies so far as this Bill is concerned—and I do try to keep to the Bill and not the Act only to appliances. The cases the hon. Lady refers to, owing to the cost of the appliances, would obviously have to receive assistance from someone.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: I hope that the Minister will say something a little more definite.

Mr. Crookshank: indicated dissent.

Mr. Gibson: This applies to a large proportion of the old people who live in these homes. They need appliances of various kinds to a far greater degree than the general population, and they are not covered by the rule he has suggested. Unless provision is made to take them out of the class that pays—and I think none should pay for them—the very poorest of the poor are to be punished.
They are the people living in homes provided by local authorities, mainly because they have no one to look after them and because they are poor. Many of them are not able to pay the full charge laid down in the residential homes, yet they will have to pay for these appliances, which they will often need. It seems a bit unreasonable when straight National Assistance cases are allowed to avoid the payment and the smaller number of people who are much poorer are asked to pay.
There is another point. If this charge is to be made, the local authority running the residential home has got to build up an elaborate machinery to collect the money, to assess the charges, and to pass the sums on to the Government. The cost will probably be a great deal more than the cost of allowing what the right hon. Gentleman admits is a small group of people, comparatively, to receive the appliances free.
I hope, therefore, that he will be a little more kindly. He must have some spark of real humanity in him somewhere, and I trust he will let it glimmer more in the interests of these men and women who will be unable to get payment for these appliances through the National Assistance Board. Unless the right hon. Gentleman gives an undertaking to arrange to take them out of the class that has to pay for these appliances, I hope that my hon. Friends will press this Amendment.

Mr. Bevan: This Amendment deals with one of the most difficult classes of potential patients in the whole of the welfare services. Indeed, it is a class of patient which, when I was at the Ministry of Health, we had the utmost difficulty in defining under any appropriate Statute.

Hon. Members who are familiar with the legislation may remember that we desired, in the abolition of the old Poor Law system, to provide a substitute for the very bad old workhouse, and what we wanted to do was to provide residential accommodation for old persons wishing to take advantage of it who were still comparatively able to look after themselves, but not to do any of the household chores.
We wanted to fit them in homes of a reasonable size so as to avoid any institutional atmosphere, and I suggested that we ought not to aim at much more than 30 beds because, if we had a larger number than that, we would be back to the old institution. I said 30 at the time, but there is no rigid number. I have opened several of these homes and visited many. Some have 20, 30, 40 and sometimes 50 beds, but when we get to more than that we are once more getting into an atmosphere which is reproductive of the old workhouse system without any of the other abominal features of that method of administration.
When these old folk reach this situation, it is very hard to find a point at which the responsibility for looking after them falls on the local welfare authority and when it should fall on the regional hospital board, because the old folk are in and out—one week they are ill and the next they are fairly all right. I remember having many discussions with local authority organisations on this matter because it is very hard, as it were, to hold them within one Statute as their physical condition makes them overlap rather into another Statute. We wanted the responsibility for personal supervision to rest with the local welfare authorities because there we have the local influence; they were looked after by local councillors who knew all about them and they could be visited by their friends and not regarded as patients for the purposes of a definition of a national health service.
Here we have a body of people that is easily identifiable, because they are persons who pay for their accommodation. The accommodation is not paid for by the National Assistance Board; let us be clear about that. The whole idea was to put these persons in a cash position of being able to pay for accommodation. They would not have the same relationship to the local authority as under the old Poor Law system. They would get


the 26s. a week—now raised—and would pay 21s. for accommodation. The cost of accommodation would be more than that, of course, and the local welfare authority would have to subsidise it.
Nevertheless, the fact that they were paying 21s. a week and no more identifies them as people dependent on National Assistance. So they are identifiable in that way, and my hon. Friends are suggesting that they should be automatically exempted from any charges under the Bill because they have already fallen into a special class, a special social category, administratively able to be identified. Indeed, in certain cases they would not be, to use an award expression, "ambulant," and not able to leave residential accommodation and go to hospital. Quite frequently they would have to be visited by doctors to have apparatus fitted in the residential home.
11.15 p.m.
Furthermore, it is quite evident that they would not go to the chemist's shop at all. The medicine would be carried to them. How are they going to do that? The right hon. Gentleman has not been clear about it. At the moment it is perfectly clear, there being no charge, that they are in no difficulty. Once we begin to make charges all these difficulties arise. What is going to happen? Are these old people going along—if they are able to do so—after the general practitioner has visited them and has prescribed medicine for them, and out of the pocket money allowed to them pay the chemist first and recover it afterwards? This is very important.
They cannot get it from the local authority. The local authority have not the statutory power to pay it or to provide any of the facilities that normally fall to the regional hospital boards to provide. Nor can they provide the cash, because once they begin to provide cash we are back to the old Poor Law system again. The whole idea was to lift this class of person out of the Poor Law system and to put them in the way of making a cash payment for their accommodation like any other better off citizen.
What is going to happen? These Amendments have been on the Order Paper for some time. I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman for not being absolutely clear about this, because only those who have been in the centre of this administration know the complexity of

the situation. In fact, in many cases the regional hospital boards have complained that they have been asked to undertake the welfare of people who ought to be looked after by the local authorities, and the local authorities have likewise complained that they have been asked to look after chronic invalids who, they say, should be looked after by the regional hospital boards.
This is not a case against the Government, or any Government, because, as I said earlier, this is a class of persons who slip from one Statute to another owing to their physical condition. Nevertheless, there is a real difficulty. The local authority cannot provide the appliance or the cash, and the National Assistance Board will not provide the cash beforehand because the cost has to be incurred before they know what to pay. How are these people to pay? It really is a serious administrative problem.
It is a problem which has only been created because of this silly Bill. It is not intrinsically a serious problem at all. It arises only because of the foolishness of the Government in going on with the Bill. What we are suggesting is that where there are persons in that category they should automatically be exempted from the charge and then no difficulties would arise.
I really think a solution is provided by the Amendment. I do not say that its wording is necessarily appropriate. Very often Amendments are not appropriately worded, but it is up to the Parliamentary draftsmen to put them in proper order at a subsequent stage. If the wording is not in order, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should accept it in principle and should subsequently put it right. In any event, I do not think we can let it go without further consideration, unless the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to give assurances at this stage.

Mr. Crookshank: I thought I had made it clear that there was a difficult little problem here, but I must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the very amusing description he gave of the "in and out" of these patients, if one may call it that; but what we are concerned with here are the appliances. [HON. MEMBERS: "And drugs."] We agreed that the drug question came largely in the other Bill. I do not want to go into all that again. But these


people will, in general, I suppose, if they require drugs, get them on prescriptions from general practitioners and not from hospitals. I suppose that would be so in nearly 95 per cent. of the cases. And to the extent that they get them from the general practitioners they are outside this Bill. The appliances are the important thing under this Clause.
The right hon. Gentleman will realise that the same sort of problem has arisen before with spectacles and dentures. In those cases the residents of these homes have to pay the charges and then they obtain the money from the National Assistance Board for the purpose. That is what they do now.

Mrs. Braddock: They cannot do it.

Mr. Crookshank: It is no good saying they cannot; somehow they do it. They get the money from the National Assistance Board. They know what the charges will be and they receive a cheque from the Board. That happens with teeth and spectacles, and that would happen with appliances, because the extent of the charge will be known and will be prescribed in the regulations. Therefore, the principle with regard to dentures and spectacles will go forward in the case of appliances under this Bill.

Mr. Baird: In the case of dentures, all that is necessary is for the dentist to give a certificate to a patient stating that he is going to fit dentures and that the charge will be so much. The National Assistance Board pay the patient and he pays the dentist.

Mr. Crookshank: That is exactly what I said. They know ahead of time in the case of spectacles and dentures and the National Assistance Board send them a cheque for the purpose and the cost is paid in that way.

Mrs. Braddock: Unnecessary administration.

Mr. Crookshank: The hon. Lady and hon. Members opposite can have their own opinion, but they are asking what it is proposed to do. They can make what comments they like, but that is the machinery intended in the case of these appliances. I pointed out that I recognised there was a difficulty, but it really does not arise under this Bill. Prescriptions from general practitioners have

nothing to do with what we are discussing today. We have to deal with the difficulty of these people who in one sense fall between two stools and in one sense sit on two stools.

Mr. Bevan: The whole purpose of the scheme under the 1948 Act was to avoid an odious distinction between people who had to pay for the accommodation after help from the Assistance Board and those who were able to pay for the accommodation without help. The whole idea was that old folk should live together in the same residential accommodation without any discriminating difference. In other words, one resident ought not to be classified as a National Assistance resident and the other as able to pay full board.
That is the whole point. A difficulty about this is that immediately that individual requires to have additional assistance he or she is identified from the rest in that home as almost a pauper and we are back where we were. Why is it necessary to torment these old folk in this silly fashion?

Mr. Crookshank: I would not accept the word "torment." All I was saying was that this has already been done—not when the right hon. Gentleman was in office but by his right hon. Friends last year—in the case of spectacles and dentures.

Mr. Bevan: Why should the right hon. Gentleman have a 100 per cent. black record of defects—all the defects of his own side and all the defects inherited from us? It does seem to me a rather foolish argument on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. It is not good enough to say all the time, "Yah! You did it." It is no explanation to the old people—or defence before them—to say, "You are being tormented twice because the Labour Government tormented you once." That is really not a good line at all. It is merely reducing administration to a Parliamentary charade.
Let us think for a moment not of ourselves—of scoring points off each other—but of the old people with whom we are dealing; and let us try to visualise the situation in which they find themselves. It is easy to do this because those people have already identified themselves, because they are in those homes and are not able to pay the standard


amount for the accommodation. So all we need do is to provide them with chits that they can hand privately to the chemist or what not; and then the whole thing is perfectly clear. I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look at this again before the Bill is completed, to see if we can introduce a little more humanity into it, and less cash sense all the time.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: I ask the Minister to be a little more forthcoming. The first time he came to that Box he said that this would be subject to further consideration. I thought then that we had achieved a minor victory, and that for the first time the Minister was softening. He has been a little hard during our discussions and has refused to give way on any point. At long last, I thought, he had softened on this question of the old people—the two categories of old people living in one institution; and that he had realised he really could not justify the anomaly that has been described by many of my hon. Friends.
I say this to him. Will he be a little more generous and say that those words, "subject to further consideration," mean that he will accept this Amendment? I do not want to be guilty of tedious repetition, but those of us who know these institutions feel that this part of the Bill, like the other parts, was slipped in without sufficient consideration. We know that the Minister is being a little stubborn in resisting our Amendment, because finally he will have to. It is quite impossible to deal with these old people differently. In one room there will be an old woman who is an Assistance patient, and in another room an old woman who is a pension patient, each having 5s. to spend.
Unless he accepts the Amendment, the Minister suggests a cumbersome piece of machinery will be set up to treat those old people. I say that that is just absurd. It is a waste of public money, and to suggest it is to under-estimate the intelligence of this Committee. Therefore, I press the Minister, just for the first time, to accept an Amendment of ours. It would be pleasant for him to go home for his Easter Recess feeling that for the first time—and, perhaps the last time—in this Committee he had done a generous thing.

Mr. Peter Baker: I am sorry to intervene at this late hour—but this Amendment is one that anyone with a social conscience will feel very strongly about, because here, I feel, is an opportunity for my right hon. Friend to give way, for at times compassion is far more important than legislation. He is suggesting a vast piece of legislative machinery for old people who are to be exempt anyway. He will not be giving away any money of the Chancellor of the Exchequer by thus showing compassion—and the spirit of Easter, as some hon. Gentleman suggests.
11.30 p.m.
I should like to see the Minister give way here. It would cost the country nothing, and at the same time it would be a gesture towards these people in these homes. From that point of view, this is an important Amendment. The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) suggested that we were returning to the workhouse or the Poor Law system. Whatever we choose to call it, these people ought not to be worried by forms and by getting cheques for an odd shilling, all of which is quite unnecessary.
I hope that on this occasion the Minister will show the right spirit—not the spirit of Christmas, although we have rather lost the sense of time in the Committee—but, let us say, the spirit of Easter. I hope he will say that he will carefully consider the Amendment and will provide some means by which these people can be exempted from the Bill without destroying the principle of the shilling charge which we on this side of the Committee support.

Mr. H. Hynd: May I offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. Baker) and commend him to the mercy of the Whips? Perhaps I may add a word of mitigation for him in case he gets into serious trouble. It is greatly to his credit that he has had the courage to urge the Minister to give way on this Amendment, which is relatively small in terms of £ s. d., but which is very important in terms of humanity.
An argument which might appeal to the right hon. Gentleman is one which has been made to him already—that there is no question of spending public money.


Indeed, it is the opposite. There will be a direct saving of public money if the Amendment is accepted, because what the Bill suggests is that x pounds or shillings will be charged on the one hand and, after a rigamarole of forms and red tape, it will be replaced on the other hand. It is a question of taking money out of one public pocket and putting it into the other public pocket. No money will be spent by anyone except the Chancellor of the Exchequer and, in the process of taking it out of his right hand pocket and putting it into his left hand pocket, the Chancellor will be involved in expenditure for administration.
I am certain that if such a proposition had been put forward by the Labour Government it would have been castigated in speeches by the then Opposition, who would have ridiculed the whole business. We do not want to do that. If we did, we might harden the right hon. Gentleman's heart. I feel more encouraged in this case than I have been throughout the Committee stage, for I feel that the right hon. Gentleman has indicated that he realises that there is a strong case for the Amendment. He seems to have shown that clearly. Why he has not given way I do not know, unless he has determined in advance to give way on nothing this evening.
I appeal to him to listen to one of his own supporters, if he will not listen to us, and to go a little further. We do not ask him to accept the letter of the Amendment, but the spirit, and if, having accepted the principle of the Amendment, he will promise between now and the Report stage to produce his own Amendment giving a form of words which will carry it into effect, I feel sure the Committee will be encouraged not only to thank him for having given way on this occasion but perhaps to be a little more timely when we come to deal with some of the other Amendments.

Sir Ralph Glyn: I want to ask the Minister, because I am not clear on the point, how many people are involved in this matter. I also would like to know whether it is true that the cost of the administration will indeed be a further burden on the Treasury? If this scheme is going to be an increased burden, it seems to me a pity that we should not be given a little more information about it. There is only one

other matter I should like to mention, as the hour is late.
We have heard from the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) some talk about Parliamentary charades. I think that is a good description of what has been happening, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for using those words. I also feel that it is a great mistake for hon. Gentlemen in any part of the Committee to believe that my right hon. Friend the Minister is hard-hearted in this matter. When going through the Lobby recently I heard him called "Hard-Hearted Harry." It is a false description. I would ask him, to save time, merely to say that he will give further consideration to this matter. It is not going to alter the principle which we are debating, but it is going to increase the cost to the Exchequer.

Mr. Ede: rose—

Mr. Crookshank: If I may intervene again, and I do not want to deprive the right hon. Gentleman of an opportunity to speak, I did indicate in my earlier speech that this was a difficult problem, because, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) has said, these are old people. The number is in the region of about 60,000.

Mrs. Braddock: And growing.

Mr. Crookshank: That is because we are all getting older.

Mr. Hastings: Does that include potential patients?

Mr. Crookshank: No. My hon. Friend asked how many were concerned now. I cannot say what the number will be next year, or in 10 years. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale pointed out, many of them are in and out, and many of them are ailing. That is all clear. The difficulty is two fold. It is partly because they are under the National Assistance Board and partly under the local authorities.

Mrs. Braddock: No, they are not under the local authorities.

Mr. Crookshank: So far as the charges for appliances are concerned to some extent they come under the National Assistance Board. In the case of dentures and spectacles there is an arrangement by which payment is made by the Board, and I would imagine that some arrange-


ments would be reached for appliances mutatis mutandis. The Treasury does not come into it, but the local authorities do. Up to this stage it has not been proper to discuss this with the local authorities at any length, but before the regulations come into effect the local authorities would obviously have to be consulted. That is as far as I propose to take it.

Mr. Bevan: The local authorities are only involved in so far as certain administrative measures may be necessary to provide these persons with means of identification. Local authorities cannot be expected to pay one brass farthing out of the local rates for this purpose. These are charges that may in certain circumstances fall on the regional hospital boards, because the difficulty here has been that in certain instances the local authorities have made arrangements with the regional boards under which patients, though they might be classified as chronic, are for a short time looked after by the local welfare authorities provided they are not chronic for too long. If they are so charged the regional boards are left to find the money automatically out of their own expenditure.
All that the local authorities would be asked to do—I can speak for them here and shall be glad to be able to help in this—would be to identify for the right hon. Gentleman the class of persons in that category in the residential homes. So he is in no embarrassment at all. He could make the concession knowing that the local authorities would co-operate.

Mr. Crookshank: No question of rates comes into the matter. The right hon. Gentleman has really made my point for me. He has been explaining how complicated is the administrative arrangement between the two authorities. He was doing it with his fingers.

Mr. Bevan: I can do it another way if the right hon. Gentleman likes.

Mr. Crookshank: It is not necessary to call upon the right hon. Gentleman in this instance. There are lots of other things which he could clear up, but that is not the point.
He admits, and I admit, that there is already a fairly complicated structure of

administration, and it is, therefore, quite impossible for me to accept the Amendment now, and I do not propose to do anything of the sort.
As to the needs of these people, the basic principle on which we are working is that where persons are in need and require help to make the payment, that should be forthcoming for them. We have said that all along. As I was trying to say when the right hon. Gentleman interrupted me the second time, we shall have to discuss these matters with those who are most concerned with the present administration to see how best it can be done. That answers the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) was making just before I rose.
I must repeat that on this Clause we are dealing merely with the hospital section of the charges and not with the general prescription charges, and the hospital appliances really come within the same system as exists for the spectacles and the dentures. The other part is a different story and does not come within the Clause, but it is a matter into which, as I have said before, we should have to look and see that the administrative structure, complicated as it is, works out all right so that no hardship on these people is involved.

Mr. Ede: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will in his further consideration of this matter bear in mind the very sincere and eloquent speech that was made by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. Baker). It showed that in this matter there is genuine concern among people who are actuated only by the desire that these old people shall be saved the amount of worry which very often comes to them when they are engaged in what are comparatively simple operations when dealt with by younger people in full possession of their faculties. The old people find it very complicated when they get involved in these administrative machines.
I have always thought that one of the best things that we have done in the past 15 or 20 years has been the care that we have been able to give to these people in the newer, smaller homes which have been built by local authorities and others. I was a member of one of the old boards of guardians, and when I


compare the provision that was made for the old people in the old workhouse, the big barrack-like institution, with the kind of more comfortable life that they can live in these surroundings, I feel that this is one of the greatest practical advances that we have made.
The hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) revealed what conversations go on in the Lobby into which I never go and the name that has been given to the right hon. Gentleman. I always comfort myself with the knowledge that one of his names is Comfort—so it appears in Dod—and this is one of the occasions when he can live up to his name.

Division No. 86.]
AYES
[11.45 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Leather, E. H. C.


Alport, C. J. M.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Fell, A.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Finlay, Graeme
Lindsay, Martin


Arbuthnot, John
Fisher, Nigel
Linstead, H. N.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Llewellyn, D. T.


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Baker, P. A. D.
Fort, R.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr J. M.
Foster, John
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)


Banks, Col. C.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Low, A. R. W.


Barber, A. P. L.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Baxter, A. B.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Gammans, L. D.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Garner-Evans, E. H.
McAdden, S. J.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
McCallum, Major D.


Birch, Nigel
Glyn, Sir Ralph
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Bishop, F. P.
Godber, J. B.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)


Black, C. W.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gower, H. R.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)



Grimond, J.
Maclean, Fitzroy


Bossom, A. C.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)


Bowen, E. R.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Harden, J. R. E.
Macpherson, Maj Niall (Dumfries)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Braine, B. R.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Harvey, Air Cdre A. V. (Macclesfield)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Marples, A. E.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Heald, Sir Lionel
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Heath, Edward
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Maude, Angus


Bullard, D. G.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Maudling, R.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr, S. L. C.


Bullus, Wing Cmdr. E. E.
Hinchinghrooke, Viscount
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Mellor, Sir John


Butcher, H. W.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Molson, A. H. E.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hollis, M. C.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Carson, Hon. E.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hopkinson, Henry
Nicholls, Harmar


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Horobin, I. M.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E)


Cole, Norman
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Colegate, W. A.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Nutting, Anthony


Cranborne, Viscount
Hurd, A. R.
Oakshott, H. D.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Odey, G. W.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Crouch, R. F.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Osborne, C.


Davidson, Viscountess
Kaberry, D.
Partridge, E.


Deedes, W. F.
Keeling, Sir Edward
Perkins, W. R. D.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lambton, Viscount
Peyton, J. W. W.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pitman, I J.


Duthie, W. S.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Powell, J. Enoch

11.45 p.m.

I feel that I am speaking not only for hon. Members on this side of the Committee when I appeal for something to be done so that this administrative jungle shall not be established, and so that these people will be able to avoid all these difficulties when they have need of this simple help in time of considerable distress.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 228: Noes, 201.

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Shepherd, William
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Touche, G. C.


Profumo, J. D.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Turton, R. H.


Raikes, H. V.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Vane, W. M. F.


Rayner, Brig. R.
Soames, Capt. C.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Redmayne, M.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Vosper, D. F.


Remnant, Hon. P.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Renton, D. L. M.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Stevens, G. P.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Robertson, Sir David
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Wellwood, W.


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Summers, G. S.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Roper, Sir Harold
Sutcliffe, H.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Russell, R. S.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Teeling, W.
Wills, G.


Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Wood, Hon. R.


Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
York, C.


Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)



Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Studholme and Major Conant.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Follick, M.
Mitchison, G. R.


Adams, Richard
Foot, M. M.
Monslow, W.


Albu, A. H.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moody, A. S.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Morgan, Dr H. B. W.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Gibson, C. W.
Morley, R.


Awbery, S. S.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S)


Baird, J.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mort, D. L.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Griffiths, David (Rather Valley)
Moyle, A.


Benn, Wedgwood
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mulley, F. W.


Benson, G.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Beswick, F.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
O'Brien, T.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
O'Neill, M. (Mid-Ulster)


Bing, G. H. C.
Hamilton, W. W.
Orbach, M.


Blackburn, F.
Hannan, W.
Oswald, T.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hargreaves, A.
Padley, W. E.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hastings, S.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Bowden, H. W.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Pannell, Charles


Bowles, F. G.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Pargiter, G. A.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Herbison, Miss M.
Parker, J.


Brockway, A. F.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Paton, J.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hobson, C. R.
Pearson, A.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Holman, P.
Peart, T. F.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Houghton, Douglas
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Burke, W. A.
Hubbard, T. F.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Proctor, W. T.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rankin, John


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Reeves, J.


Champion, A. J.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Chapman, W. D.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Rhodes, H.



Janner, B.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Roberts, Geronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Cocks, F. S.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Collick, P. H.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Ross, William


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Cove, W. G.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Snow, J. W.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Keenan, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank


de Freitas, Geoffrey
King, Dr. H. M.
Sparks, J. A.


Deer, G.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Steele, T.


Delargy, H. J.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Donnelly, D. L.
Lewis, Arthur
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Driberg, T. E. M.
Lindgren, G. S.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Llewellyn, D. T.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
MacColl, J. E.
Stress, Dr. Barnett


Edelman, M.
McLeavy, F.
Summerskill, Rt Hon. E.


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Swingler, S. T.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Ewarl, R.
Manuel, A. C.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Fernyhough, E.
Marquand, Rt. Hon H. A.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Field, W. J.
Mayhew, C. P.
Tourney, F.


Finch, H. J.
Mellish, R. J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mikardo, Ian
Wallace, H. W.







Watkins, T. E.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)
Wyatt, W. L.


Wells, William (Walsall)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


West, D. G.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)



Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Mr. Royle and Mr. Wigg.


Wilkins, W. A.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."

Division No. 87.]
AYES
[11.54 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oswald, T.


Adams, Richard
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Padley, W. E.


Albu, A. H.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Grimond, J.
Pannell, Charles


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Pargiter, G. A.


Awbery, S. S.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Cone Valley)
Parker, J.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hamilton, W. W.
Paton, J.


Baird, J.
Hannan, W.
Pearson, A.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hargreaves, A.
Peart, T. F.


Benn, Wedgwood
Hastings, S.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Benson, G.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Beswick, F.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A (Ebbw Vale)
Herbison, Miss M.
Proctor, W. T.


Bing, G. H. C.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pryde, D. J.


Blackburn, F.
Hobson, C. R.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Blenkinsop, A.
Holman, P.
Rankin, John


Bottomley, Rt. Hon A. G.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Reeves, J.


Bowden, H. W.
Houghton, Douglas
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Bowen, E. R.
Hubbard, T. F.
Rhodes, H.


Bowles, F. G.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Robens, Rt Hon A.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Brockway, A. F.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Ross, William


Broughton, Dr A. D. D.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon E.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Janner, B.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Burke, W. A.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Jenkins, R. H. (Slechford)
Snow, J. W.


Callaghan, L. J.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Sorensen, R. W.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Champion, A. J.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Sparks, J. A.


Chapman, W. D.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Steele, T.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Cocks, F. S.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Collick, P. H.
Keenan, W.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Corbel, Mrs. Freda
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Cove, W. G.
King, Dr. H. M.
Stress, Dr. Barnett


Crosland, C. A. R.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Swingle., S. T.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lewis, Arthur
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Lindgren, G. S.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Taylor, Rt. Hon Robert (Morpeth)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
MacColl, J. E.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McLeavy, F.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W)


Deer, G.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Delargy, H. J.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Tomney, F.


Donnelly, D. L.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Driberg, T. E. N.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wallace, H. W.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E)
Watkins, T. E.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Manuel, A. C.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Edelman, M.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Mayhew, C. P.
West, D. G.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mellish, R. J.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon John


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mikardo, Ian
White, Mrs. Eirene (E Flint)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mitchison, G. R.
Wilkins, W. A.


Evans, Stanley, (Wednesbury)
Monslow, W.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N)


Fernyheugh, E.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Field, W. J.
Morley, R.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Finch, H. J.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Follick, M.
Mort, D. L.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Foot, M. M.
Moyle, A.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mulley, F. W.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon H. T. N.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Wyatt, W. L.


Gibson, C. W.
O'Brien, T.
Younger, Rt. Hon K.


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
O'Neill, M. (Mid-Ulster)



Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Orbach, M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Royle and Mr. Wigg.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 202; Noes, 223.

NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Harden, J. R. E.
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Alport, C. J. M.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Nutting, Anthony


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Oakshott, H. D.


Arbuthnot, John
Heald, Sir Lionel
Odey, G. W.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Heath, Edward
Ormsby-Gore, How W. D.


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Higgs, J. M. C.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Banks, Col. C.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Osborne, C.


Barber, A. P. L.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Partridge, E.


Baxter, A. B.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Perkins, W. R. D.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks S.)
Hollis, M. C.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Pitman, I. J.


Birch, Nigel
Hopkinson, Henry
Powell, J. Enoch


Bishop, F. P.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Black, C. W.
Horobin, I. M.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Profumo, J. D.


Bossom, A. C.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Raikes, H. V.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Redmayne, M.


Braine, B. R.
Hurd, A. R.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Renton, D. L. M.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Robertson, Sir David


Brooman-White, R. C.
Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Bullard, D. G.
Kaberry, D.
Roper, Sir Harold


Bullock, Capt. M.
Keeling, Sir Edward
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Russell, R. S.


Burden, F. F. A.
Lambton, Viscount
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Butcher H. W.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Carson, Hon. E.
Leather, E. H. C.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Cary, Sir Robert
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Shepherd, William


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon, A. T.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Cole, Norman
Lindsay, Martin
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Colegate, W. A.
Linstead, H. N.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Soames, Capt. C.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Cranborne, Viscount
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon H. F. C.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Low, A. R. W.
Stevens, G. P.


Crouch, R. F.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Summers, G. S.


Davidson, Viscountess
McAdden, S. J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Deedes, W. F.
McCallum, Major C.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Digby, S. Wingfield
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Dodds-Parker, A D.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Teeling, W.


Donaldson, Cmdr C. E. McA.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Duthie, W. S.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Eccles, Rt. Hon D. M.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Elliot, Rt. Hon W. E.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Thornton-Kemsley, Cot. C. N.


Fell, A.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Touche, G. C.


Finlay, Graeme
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Turton, R. H.


Fisher, Nigel
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Vane, W. M. F.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Fletcher Cooke, C.
Marples, A. E.
Vosper, D. F.


Fort, R.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Foster, John
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Maude, Angus
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Galbraith, Cmdr T. D. (Pollok)
Maudling, R.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Maydon, Lt-Cmdr. S. L, G.
Wellwood, W.


Gammans, L. D.
Medlicott, Brig. F.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Mellor, Sir John
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Matson, A. H. E.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E)


Godber, J. B.
Monckton, Rt. Hon, Sir Walter
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Wills, G.


Gewer, H. R.
Nicholls, Harmar
Wood, Hon. R.


Grinston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)



Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Studholme and Mr. Conant.

Mr. Crookshank: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
It is just after midnight and the Committee has probably sufficiently discussed this Bill this Sitting. I was asked a little


while ago, when the right hon. Gentleman moved to report Progress, how far I hoped to get. I did have in mind—although I did not think it was a good idea to say so, from the experience we have had during the debate—that we should take the Amendment which we have just finished and, if the Committee so desired, then adjourn, because that cleared off the Amendments that were down under Clause 1, page 1, line 9.
It is quite true we have not made much progress with the Bill, but that certainly is not the fault of my hon. and right hon. Friends. Those who wish to study these things can make their own deductions and put the blame for the delay where it lies. It seems to me we would be wise now to break off our discussions—

Mr. Shinwell: Why did the right hon. Gentleman not do it half an hour ago?

Mr. Crookshank: Because a discussion was going on on that Amendment and we only brought it to an end by the fact that we moved the Closure, which the Chairman was good enough to accept. If there had been any desire to bring the discussion to an end half an hour ago, I would have moved the Motion half an hour ago, but only now have I been able to do it. I hope the Committee will accept it and that we may now retire and rest from our labours.

Mr. McNeil: I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman has any right to reproach us for holding up progress. The Committee may remember that one way of making progress is to show some reasonableness in discussion. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think me churlish if I say that repeatedly, while expressing an off-hand sympathy for what seemed to us an important Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman has sought refuge in legalistic arguments. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that if he used a generous form of words to indicate that he had a real intention of meeting a case put by us—

The Chairman: We cannot now discuss Amendments which have been passed over.

Mr. McNeil: With the greatest respect, I am not discussing the Amendment; I am addressing myself to an argument and

reproach which the right hon. Gentleman chose to offer to this side of the Committee. If this Committee, or any other Committee, is to move at reasonable speed, it will depend on give and take on both sides; but there has been no give from the Government.
Hon. Members who are familiar with the business of this Committee should reflect on this point—and it is no reflection on the Chair—that there has not been a single Amendment in these three days of discussion which has been dealt with otherwise than by moving the Closure. In some cases that may have been our fault, but it is most unlikely that it has been continuously our fault. There has not been a single concession offered by the Government. If they look for speed on this subject and want us to facilitate the movement of the Bill, they must think again about coming to the Committee in a more reasonable state of mind, considering our Amendments as they should be considered, objectively, and offering a reasoned case, and where no case is offered at any rate agreeing that they will be looked at again.

Mr. Powell: I was not clear whether the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) was supporting or opposing the Motion. I think that it gives the Committee an opportunity that is much needed to consider the point at which we have now arrived. I do not think any hon. Member can have been present during the three-days' consideration of this Bill in Committee without being perfectly clear in his mind what was going on and what was the purpose of the procedure which he was seeing enacted.
No one who reads with any knowledge of the matter in hand the pages upon pages of Amendments which have been put down to this Bill can be in any doubt as to the intention behind them. A small minority of the speeches—

Mr. Baird: But a majority in the country though.

Mr. Powell: I am coming to the question of the country in a moment.
As I was saying, a small minority of the speeches which have been made have related to substantial points. But of the great majority, quite the reverse has been true. A distinction which cannot be exactly defined is none the less an im-


portent and may be a vital distinction. Such is the distinction between the most determined and pertinacious opposition to legislation on one hand and that process which bears the hideous name of filibustering on the other.
The aim of the procedure which the Committee has witnessed in the last three days has not been to improve legislation. It has not even been to oppose legislation. It has been to prevent legislation altogether. The most sinister feature of all has been this: the declared intention has not been merely or mainly to prevent this present legislation, but, through this procedure, to prevent other legislation. What we do in this place we do partly in the disharge of our duty as Members of the greatest corporation in the world. But we do it also in the performance of a duty to those out of doors. Those who sent us here—on whichever side of the Committee we sit—would not be satisfied unless we represented our respective points of view with the fullest use of the proper Parliamentary procedure which is at our disposal.

The Chairman: I hope the hon. Member will confine his remarks to the Motion before the Committee.

Mr. Powell: I think it is important that at this stage Progress should be reported in order that considerations which arise directly out of what has happened in this Committee may be reflected upon by all hon. Members. Opinion out of doors is already well aware of the real nature of this opposition.

Mr. Richard Adams: On a point of order.

The Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman really believes he is rising to a point of order, I shall be glad to hear it.

Mr. Adams: I beg to move—[Interruption.]

The Chairman: There is so much noise going on that I have not heard the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Adams: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but The CHAIRMAN withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. Powell: If by this deliberate abuse of the procedure of the House of Com-

mons we destroy, as we can, in a short time, that unrivalled instrument which seven centuries have built for the protection or our rights and liberties, the people out of doors will never forgive us.

12.15 a.m.

Miss Jennie Lee: Early in this debate a reply was made by several hon. Members of this Committee to all the points which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has now made. Unfortunately at that time the benches opposite were empty while hon. Members opposite were resolving their differences upstairs. I apologise to those hon. Members of the Committee who were involved in our discussion in this Chamber on the Health Service charges if I have to repeat now—because I think it is important that hon. Members opposite should hear them—those arguments and some of the points made earlier.
I believe we have come to a time when all of us in this Chamber must be extremely careful what we do about Parliamentary procedure. One of the most distinctive features about this country is that in this Chamber, even when we feel most strongly about certain issues, we nevertheless try to resolve them by argument and by keeping in mind the balance of opinion both in the House of Commons and in the country.
Hon. Members opposite apparently were amused when I talked about them resolving their difficulties upstairs. If they had been here instead of outside they would have known that I expressed my sympathy with them and my understanding, because I do not like the tendency towards monolithic parties on either side of this Chamber. I believe that a great part of the vitality and reality of British politics is that there is an argument going on within parties as well as between parties. And if the party opposite had any mandate in terms of their strength in this Chamber or their support in the country for carrying out controversial legislation, such as the health charges, then there would be some substance in the point the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has just made.
Parliamentary institutions are beginning to be endangered when the Government quite deliberately are responsible for using Parliamentary time for a


Measure of this kind to such an extent that, as all of us know, not enough time will be left for the Finance Bill. As I say, the hon. Gentleman would not have talked as foolishly as he did if he had been here when I was speaking before. But the Government are deliberately creating a dilemma in which they will insist upon our passing the Finance Bill almost without hearing it, and with scarcely enough time even for the Guillotine to work.
So I say that the correct thing to do in this situation is to drop these health charges. I ask hon. Members opposite to be responsive, as we all must be in a democratic community—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Steel Bill?"] That was almost dropped for the same reason. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There was a time when opinion in this Chamber and in the country was divided on that matter, and so there was delay and difficulty in passing that Measure.
What is clear is that the Labour Government in the last Parliament delayed or postponed legislation on which we all felt keenly. We have not carried out yet our 1949 programme. We have not completed it. We are going to, but we are not going to do it by dictatorship methods. We are going to do it by Parliamentary methods, and we are going to do it quite soon, because it is obvious that every day adds to the support we have in the country, and we are moving to a vigorous, new Socialist Britain.

Mr. Richard Fort: On a point of order. Is this discussion of party politics relevant to the Motion before the Committee?

The Chairman: I was just wondering how it linked up with reporting Progress. I was waiting to see.

Miss Lee: The Labour Government set an example, and those of us on this side, who did not represent the majority in our own party, had to wait until such time as circumstances taught those who disagreed with us that we were right. That was fair enough. We are not going to have any more health charges from a Labour Government. I do not think any of my hon. Friends will challenge that. When we had a situation in which the Labour Government had only a narrow majority here—

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: They just ran away.

The Chairman: I find it difficult to understand how a majority in the last Parliament affects this Motion.

Miss Lee: If I have been led astray, Sir Charles, I have been led astray in bad company. But may I reply to that interjection opposite? The hon. Member talked about running away. What happened was this. There was Socialist legislation we were all keen to see on the Statute Book, but it did not reach the Statute Book because there was not a sufficient majority here or in the country at that time. That is precisely why some of us advocated that we should go to the country and face a General Election.
Therefore, I say to hon. Members opposite that they should now go back to the country to see whether they have a mandate even for standing still. I do not think even they would be surprised by the result; I think they know that they are abusing their position in the House when they try to pass legislation such as these punitive measures on sick people.

Mr. G. Lindgren: I want to reinforce the arguments which have been advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee). We should refuse to report Progress because right hon. and hon. Members opposite have no mandate in the country for the legislation which they are placing before the House—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite interject with a comment about friendly societies. If I may, I should like to tell them that they are so ignorant of the normal character of working-class life that they do not know the difference between a friendly society and what were at one time in this country the approved societies.

The Chairman: I think it might be of assistance to the Committee if I reminded them of Standing Order No. 25, which says:
the debate thereupon shall be confined to the matter of such Motion;
I hope hon. Members will keep within that.

Mr. Lindgren: There must be a first time for everything in this Chamber, and that, Sir Charles, is the first time I have ever been called to order by the Chair.


Of course, I respect your Ruling, but I submit to you that when hon. Members opposite interject a comment about friendly societies I am entitled to point out that they do not know what a friendly society is, nor do they know what an approved society is. If I am called to order for answering the interjection, I put it to you with the greatest respect that they should have been called to order for suggesting that friendly societies had anything to do with the Motion to report Progress.
On the Front Bench opposite is the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. J. Grimston), who saw fit last Friday in the "Herts Advertiser," to say that a Labour hon. Member should not enter his constituency to contest a county council election.

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. William Hamilton: That is twice.

The Chairman: I think the hon. Member is going beyond the Rules of order.

Mr. Lindgren: The point is that if the hon. Member for St. Albans had to fight an election tomorrow, he would lose it.

Mr. John Grimston: The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) has referred to me, so perhaps I may point out that I did not say he had no right to enter my constituency. I said he hardly had time to represent the people properly.

Mr. Lindgren: I suggest that the people prefer my views to those of the hon. Member for St. Albans. Hon. Members opposite should test the opinion of the country. If they feel that this Bill has the support of the country and they want to report Progress, why not test the opinion of the country? I would suggest that from Land's End to John o' Groats the opinion of the country has been tested during the last week-end, and its opinion in the matter of social services is reflected in the local government election results. The people of the country have emphatically stated that they have no confidence in hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and, therefore, I do suggest that if we are to report Progress we should give an opportunity not only to the House, but also to the country to report progress, and say

whether they believe that the Government should remain in power or be swept from office.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: There is only one thing worse than listening to speeches that are irrelevant and that is listening to speeches that are humbug. The last two speeches to which we have listened have been obvious humbug. We have the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) trying to paint a picture of the previous Government with a small majority recognising the rights of the other people in the House, when we know that with a majority so small that one could hardly see it, they pushed through some of the most controversial of legislation.

Hon. Members: What?

The Chairman: I think that if both sides of the Committee would keep quiet I could hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

Mr. Nicholls: If we are to examine what the country wants or does not want, it is perfectly clearly that at the time the Steel Bill was pushed through the last Parliament—[Interruption].

The Chairman: We really cannot discuss the Steel Bill on the Motion before the House.

Mr. Nicholls: I have every confidence that the Motion to report Progress will be approved, and that we shall have some time to think about what has gone on during the last week. I hope that during that time we shall give thought to the dignity of Parliament. The performance we have witnessed in the last two days, led by the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing)—

Mr. Bing: As the hon. Gentleman has been good enough to refer to me, he ought to have made his speech earlier when we were debating the matter. If he has any strictures to pass he should pass them on the Patronage Secretary, whose conduct has been the subject of reproof during the last two days.

Mr. Nicholls: I am glad the hon. and learned Gentleman responded to that. He recognised it has been a performance, a tragi-comic performance, and I hope that we shall have time to give thought to that kind of attitude. We should recognise that we are prepared


to give a lot of time to really relevant Amendments on the paper. It is against the interests of the country to introduce such obvious filibustering as we have had.

Sir Richard Acland: On the Motion that we should report Progress the hon. Members for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) and Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), have given us samples of the speeches which, beyond doubt, the Conservative Party Members will make up and down the country during the Recess which is just about to break upon us. Therefore, before we decide whether to report Progress or not it is relevant to examine these free samples of constituency speeches which have been given to us.
Although one or two of my hon. Friends have dealt with the matter very brilliantly, I do not see why one or two more of us should not try to drive home the points so that even hon. Members opposite may at least see, even if they do not agree with, the arguments on our side.
We cannot doubt at all that the words "obstruction" and "filibustering" will be used all over the country in the hope that the people will rise to it and will sympathise with hon. Members opposite, who undoubtedly feel that they have a blazing sense of grievance against the world in general, against the Opposition in particular and against my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing) in particular.
We even see that newspapers of a Tory persuasion are taking this point up. I noticed in one of them at the beginning of this week the phrase "The Labour Party are doing more or less what the Tories did when they were in opposition but doing it rather better." That is just the sort of thing which sums up the two speeches which we have heard from the back benches opposite.
On this side we are not at all doing the sort of thing which the Tory Opposition did in the last Parliament, and that for two reasons. There are two great differences between our position now and the Tory position then. The first difference—

Mr. Bernard Braine: We have one leader.

Sir R. Acland: I hardly feel that this is a very good day for Conservative back

benchers to raise any question of divided counsels within political parties. With my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), I take it for granted that differences of opinion within political parties on this side or the other indicate a perfectly normal and healthy state of affairs. A very regrettable disease would have overcome any political party in which no such differences were to be found.
I want to return to my attempt to try to show the two hon. Members opposite why the speeches that they have made in support of the Motion do not represent the true position at all, and that the position is quite different from that in the last Parliament. In the last Parliament, the Conservative Opposition—

The Chairman: I would ask the hon. Baronet not to deal with the last Parliament. We are dealing with the present Parliament at the moment, and only to report Progress.

Sir R. Acland: rose—

Mr. A. C. Manuel: You are all right on that side.

The Chairman: I must ask the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) to withdraw that remark, which reflects upon the Chair.

Mr. Manuel: I was referring to the fact that there has never been a Closure Motion moved from that side of the Committee which has not been accepted. I have no intention of withdrawing that observation, which is factual. I did not refer to the Chair.

The Chairman: I beg the hon. Member's pardon; I thought he did. [Interruption.]

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I am trying to listen to what the hon. Baronet is saying, but there has been a continual barrage of shouting and bellowing by hon. Members opposite who have not been in the Chamber all the night. Could you please keep them in order so that I can hear what is going on?

The Chairman: I have every sympathy with the hon. Member. I have been doing my best to keep the Committee quiet. I have great difficulty in hearing.

Sir R. Acland: I have every respect for your criticism of what I was saying, Sir Charles. Two hon. Members opposite made speeches to indicate, first to the House and, the House being a forum from which words spread, to the country, why the conduct of the Opposition in the last few days, or months, was discreditable. They did this as part of the argument in favour of reporting Progress and asking leave to sit again. That having been done, I felt that, subject to your Ruling, Sir Charles, I might offer some reason why the conduct of the Opposition has been proper. I appreciate that one must not go in great detail into events in the last Parliament, but I feel that the situation in this Parliament might be illuminated by contrasting it briefly with the situation which existed in the last. In that Parliament the Opposition was not contending against a programme of controversial party legislation.

The Chairman: I think the hon. Baronet cannot have understood me. I said that we cannot discuss the last Parliament on this Motion, which is a very narrow one.

Sir R. Acland: The Bills which are being introduced, and promised for this Parliament, are as if we had introduced, with a majority of six, Bills to nationalise cement, sugar and wholesale meat distribution. If these had been the kind of Measures against which hon. Members opposite had been contending, then we could say that they were doing the same kind of thing as we are doing now. But with no legislation against which they had any objection on party principle, they were just selecting and choosing almost childish points of no importance whatever—to keep the House awake at night for the sake of keeping it awake, and for no other purpose whatever.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: rose—

12.45 a.m.

Sir R. Acland: We are contending against controversial party legislation.
The other point of dissimilarity is that the Tory Opposition did not command the support of the majority of the people in the country. In the last Parliament they thought—

The Chairman: I am very reluctant to stop the hon. Member, but it is not

the occasion to discuss the last Parliament now, when the Motion is that I do report Progress. I must ask him to keep to the point.

Mr. Ede: On a point of order, may I draw attention to the fact that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) spent the greater part of his time just now describing what he thought happened in the last Parliament, and he even said that we passed the Steel Act in the last Parliament—and was priding himself on the part he played, although I never noticed it at the time.

The Chairman: I did stop the hon. Member.

Mr. H. Nicholls: You did call me to order, Sir Charles, and I did not refer again to the question of the Steel Bill.

Sir R. Acland: When this Parliament was elected we discovered that although the Government won a majority of seats their confidently-made claims that they represented the majority of the voters turned out to be quite false. Our position is quite otherwise. At all times during this Parliament we have represented the majority of voters—[An HON. MEMBER: "But not constituencies."]—only because of quite fortuitous circumstances arising from the way in which the electorate happened to be distributed in certain areas. We are prepared to facilitate the administration of this country under their care until such time as they see fit to go to the country. But we have not merely a right, as representing a majority, we have a duty to prevent the minority—

The Chairman: Order: I have stopped the hon. Baronet several times for irrelevancy. If he continues, I shall ask him to resume his seat.

Sir R. Acland: I am in your hands, Sir Charles, and will bow to your Ruling. I am only trying to make an answer to the points which were made, as I thought quite properly from their point of view, by the two hon. back benchers who spoke on the other side of the Committee.
I am sorry that it takes rather longer to make the answer than it took to make the point, but that often is the case. It is pretty easy to get up and say "filibustering" or "obstructing;" and to imagine that there will be an echo in the hearts of those of the population who are still supporters of the Conservative Party.
It does take a little longer to show why this charge is not rightly made against the Opposition now, and it seemed to me that I was right in saying that we who all along have represented a majority—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] All the way through this Parliament we have represented more voters than the Government party—

Mr. W. T. Williams: Give the figures.

Sir R. Acland: The actual figures, which my hon. Friend has just passed to me, are that 13,911,000 voters voted for our party and 13,708,000 electors voted—

The Chairman: Order. I must ask the hon. Baronet to resume his seat.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: The Government benches seem to be in a state of unhappiness today, for reasons we all very well understand, because they were missing for a long time, trying to cheer themselves up and to re-unite their ranks. Therefore, presumably, this unhappiness on the Government benches is the reason for the Leader of the House moving to report Progress. Apparently, the right hon. Gentleman does not feel that he can face leading his troops through the night. No doubt that is why it is being done.
It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby) is not here, because we have been discussing this Bill as on other nights we were discussing perfectly seriously another Bill, and all the discussion has been directed to real Amendments and to real points. Therefore, it cannot be alleged that we are engaging in the process that was recommended at some other time—of harrying and trying to drive men to an early grave—upon a public platform.
These are serious arguments, serious Amendments. Unhappily, the Minister of Health and those in charge of the Bill have not accepted our arguments in that spirit but mechanically, all the time, have said, "No, no, no." In our judgment this Bill is a bad Bill. The same view is taken by the Liberal Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] There is a considerable electoral majority against the Bill or against the policy

which the Government is pursuing. In our judgment it is right that we should report Progress and ask leave to sit again, except that we would sooner the House did not ask leave to sit again at all on this Bill.
Having said that, I must add that I think the Ministers have handled the Committee stage very badly indeed. I really thought that the Leader of the House was the best choice of the Prime Minister for the job, but he is disappointing us day by day. He is letting us down. Mere negation, a lack of conciliation and unwillingness to make compromises where compromise is possible, makes it difficult to facilitate the necessary progress of the Bill.
Therefore, while it is not for us to seek to continue the sitting, we have to express ourselves about the way the Bill is being handled and about the style of the Minister of Health. I suggest to my hon. Friends that, while we have no wish to continue on this Bill at all, we must register our protest about the way it is being done. The time has now come when we should reach a conclusion on this Motion, and I recommend to my hon. Friends that, as a protest against the incompetent and inadequately courteous way in which the business has been handled, we should without further ado go into the Division Lobby against the Government.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden): I do not know whether it is an unexpected case of imagination, or, perhaps, personal painful experience, that makes the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) so sure that he knows exactly what happens in party meetings upstairs. Had he for a moment been able to look over his shoulder when he was chiding us with lack of unity, he would not have completed a phrase on the topic.
It is not for me to use any of the old adjectives, even to the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), about the pot and the kettle; I will leave her to use them, if she thinks fit. The right hon. Gentleman complains of the conduct of this Bill. I prefer to think that the hon. Baronet the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland), though not at all times very easy to follow, was very near the mark when he said—I took down his


words for better accuracy—that my two hon. Friends who spoke earlier had quite properly made some criticisms of the conduct of the Opposition.

Sir R. Acland: From their point of view.

Mr. Eden: They would not make it from the hon. Gentleman's point of view. I would defy anybody to explain anything from the hon. Gentleman's point of view.

Sir R. Acland: That is perfectly fair. But the right hon. Gentleman was purporting to quote me as if I were giving my personal point of view. All I said was that it was perfectly proper for them, holding their views, to try to make those points, although, in my opinion, they are bad points.

Mr. Eden: We are getting on; there is almost the same kind of convolution as the hon. Baronet recommended, so that we might understand each other. I suggest that the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock was quite rightly apprehensive, in the very able intervention she made, of the judgment that the country may take of what has been happening in the last three days.

Miss Lee: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to misrepresent me. I am extremely charitable, but not to the extent of being apprehensive about hon. Gentlemen opposite. They have every reason to be apprehensive. The right hon. Gentleman's apprehension is quite understandable.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Eden: I did not quite follow the full significance of that explanation, but—[Interruption]—hon. Members can be patient; I am making a reasonable reply to the debate. What I was pointing out was that I would understand if the hon. Lady felt apprehensive as to the view the country might take as to the progress we have made in the last three days because in three days of Committee we have so far reached line 9 of the Bill, and the first four lines are descriptive. When hon. Members opposite say that we shall no doubt express our views on this matter in the country they are, of course, perfectly correct. That is precisely what we propose to do.

Mr. I. Mikardo: The people in the country expressed their views this week.

Mr. Eden: I do not know what the hon. Member is expressing, but the hon. Member is pleased and that is satisfactory to the hon. Member, if not to anyone else.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: I suggest that it might be of assistance to the right hon. Gentleman, in assessing the present mood of the country, to learn that out of 21 results in the Norfolk County Council elections this evening 13 wins have been recorded for Labour.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Eden: Hon. Members are fully at liberty to cheer that and anything which can possibly encourage them. It neither depresses nor surprises me that they should be elated by those facts. What I am dealing with is the particular stage at which we are on this Bill and I was pointing out that it was possible that people in the country might take the view that we have not been making such rapid progress. [HON. MEMBERS: "They do not want it."] If the country do not want any progress made, hon. Members are, on their own admission, obstructing the Bill and will have no complaint when we point out that filibustering tactics have been used—

Hon. Members: Oh.

The Chairman: I think the right hon. Gentleman might be allowed to continue.

Mr. Eden: —and draw our own conclusions and express them to the country as we shall.

The Chairman: The Question is—

Mr. Baird: Once again the Chairman has given way—

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

The Chairman: I understood that the Committee were willing to come to a decision.

Mr. Baird: What I said was that once again the Chair has given way—

The Chairman: That is completely unwarranted; I do not know what the hon. Member means. The Closure has not been moved—

Hon. Members: It has.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

The Chairman: The Question is, "That the Question be now put."

Mr. Bevan: On a point of order.

The Chairman: I was in the course of collecting the voices.

Mr. Bevan: You ought not to be.

The Chairman: I hope the right hon. Gentleman with withdraw that remark.

Mr. Bevan: As I understand the position, Sir Charles, you did not understand that the Patronage Secretary had moved that "The Question be now put," and, therefore, your acceptance of the Motion from him was made under a misapprehension, but when the Patronage Secretary did move the Question you accepted it. There is no automatic obligation on the Chair to accept the Motion that, "The Question be now put." It seemed to us, as you misunderstood the previous Motion, rather difficult to understand that you automatically accepted the Motion when the Patronage Secretary moved it.

The Chairman: I think the right hon. Gentleman completely misunderstood

Division No. 88.]
AYES
[1.8 a.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hurd, A. R.


Alport, C. J. M.
Davidson, Viscountess
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Deedes, W. F.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Digby, S. Wingfield
Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Kaberry, D.


Baker, P. A. D.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lambton, Viscount


Banks, Col. C.
Fell, A.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Barber, A. P. L.
Finlay, Graeme
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Baxter, A. B.
Fisher, Nigel
Leather, E. H. C.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)


Birch, Nigel
Fort, R.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Bishop, F. P.
Foster, John
Lindsay, Martin


Black, C. W.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Linstead, H. N.


Bossom, A. C.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Low, A. R. W.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Braine, B. R.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
McAdden, S. J.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Godber, J. B.
MacCallum, Major D.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Gower, H. R.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Grimond, J.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Bullard, D. G.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maclean, Fitzroy


Bullus, Wing Commander, E. E.
Harden, J. R. E.
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)


Burden, F. F. A.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Butcher, H. W.
Harrison, Cot. J. H. (Eye)
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Carson, Hon. E.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Cary, Sir Robert
Heald, Sir Lionel
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Champion, A. J.
Heath, Edward
Marples, A. E.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)


Cole, Norman
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maude, Angus


Colegate, W. A.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Maudling, R.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hollis, M. C.
Medlicott, Brig F.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Mellor, Sir John


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Molson, A. H. E.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Crouch, R. F.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Nicholls, Harmar


Cuthbert, W. N.
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

what happened. After having heard the speech of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), I came to the conclusion that the Committee was ready to come to a decision. I therefore proceeded to put the Question that, "The Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."[Interruption.] I must ask hon. Members to give me a chance to state what I know to be true. If every time I say something it is doubted, how can I carry on? I understood that the Committee was ready to come to a decision. I put the Question to report Progress and then an hon. Member got up to speak, and at that moment the Patronage Secretary moved the Closure which I was quite entitled to accept, and which I do accept.

Question, "That the Question be now put," and agreed to.

Question put accordingly "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 199 Noes, 140.

Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Teeling, W.


Nugent, G. R. H.
Roper, Sir Harold
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Nutting, Anthony
Repner, Col. Sir Leonard
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Oakshott, H. D.
Russell, R. S.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Odey, G. W.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Touche, G. C.


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Vane, W. M. F.


Osborne, C.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Partridge, E.
Shepherd, William
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Perkins, W. R. D.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Peyton, J. W. W.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Wellwood, W.


Pitman, I. J.
Soames, Capt. C.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Powell, J. Enoch
Spearman, A. C. M.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Prior-Palmer, Brig O. L.
Stevens, G. P.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Raikes, H. V.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Wills, G.


Redmayne, M.
Stuart, Rt. Hon James (Moray)
Wood, Hon. R.


Remnant, Hon. P.
Summers, G. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Renton, D. L. M.
Sutcliffe, H.
Mr. Studholme and Mr. Vosper.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Griffiths, David (Rather Valley)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Adams, Richard
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
O'Brien, T.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hamilton, W. W.
O'Neill, M. (Mid-Ulster)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Hargreaves, A.
Orbach, M.


Awbery, S. S.
Healey, Denis (Leeds. S.E.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Pargiter, G. A.


Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Herbison, Miss M.
Paton, J.


Benn, Wedgwood
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Peart, T. F.


Bing, G. H. C.
Hobson, C. R.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Blackburn, F.
Holman, P.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Blenkinsop, A.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Proctor, W. T.


Bowden, H. W.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Bowles, F. G.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Reeves, J.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Robens, Rt. Hon A.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Janner, B.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Ross, William


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Callaghan, L. J.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Chapman, W. D.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Sorensen, R. W.


Cocks, F. S.
Keenan, W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Cove, W. G.
King, Dr. H. M.
Stokes, Rt. Hon R. R.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Swingler, S. T.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Lewis, Arthur
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Lindgren, G. S.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Wallace, H. W.


Deer, G.
MacColl, J. E.
Watkins, T. E.


Delargy, H. J.
McLeavy, F.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Donnelly, D. L.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Driberg, T. E. N.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Wilkins, W. A.


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Manuel, A. C.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Fernyhough, E.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Field, W. J.
Mayhew, C. P.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mellish, R. J.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Foot, M. M.
Mikardo, Ian
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G. R.
Wyatt, W. L.


Gaitskall, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Monslow, W.



Gibson, C. W.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Mr. Hannan and Mr. Royle.


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mulley, F. W.

Committee report progress; to sit again upon Monday, 21st April.

Orders of the Day — SCRAP MENTAL (SALVAGE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Butcher.]

1.16 a.m.

Wing Commander Eric Bullus: Though I welcome the opportunity of the quieter waters of the Adjournment I regret that I should be the one that should detain the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply on the eve, if not on the occasion, of his wedding anniversary.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Do him good.

Wing Commander Bullus: I am very glad that this Adjournment debate is not taking place tomorrow night, and I wish my hon. Friend many happy returns of the day and a successful term of office at the Ministry of Supply.
It is appropriate that earlier this week we discussed the economic situation when we debated the Finance Bill on Second Reading, for that is the right background for the few remarks I want to make tonight. Every thinking person in this country knows the gravity of the situation that faces this country, and the vital necessity to extract every bit of use from our existing resources. Unfortunately, I think that there is considerable waste in this country.
Two months ago I sought to call attention to the great wastage of apples in this country, and I pointed out that, in an average year, between 50,000 and 100,000 tons of apples were wasted, and that that represented millions of gallons of fruit juice, thousands of tons of pectin, which is imported into this country from dollar sources when we can get it, and a certain amount of animal fodder. Recently, in the Budget debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt) called attention to the loss of oil, because we do very little refining of waste lubricating oil. There are many other examples of wasted materials which could be salvaged.
But tonight I wish to speak, briefly, of the undoubted amount of waste scrap metal which exists in this country which could and should, I think, be salvaged. I am convinced that up and down this country, in homes, in back gardens, in factories, on farms, in dumps, and in

many other places, there is scrap metal which, in aggregate, would make a considerable addition to our stocks of vital raw materials resources. The sources of foreign imported scrap have diminished in the last two or three years, and the possibility of delay of American supplies of finished steel indicated this week makes a thorough scrap drive in this country of paramount importance. Our blast furnaces are starved of scrap metal.
I hope that the Minister will agree with what I have said and that he will be able to tell us this morning what his Department are doing in the matter. I content myself with asking a series of questions which, if we have the answers, will give a fair idea, I think, of what is being done or what can be done. In the first place, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary this: Is he satisfied, or is his right hon. Friend satisfied, that everything possible is being done in his Department to encourage and fully to publicise the collection of scrap metal in the country? May I ask whether there is any central direction and co-ordination from the Ministry or whether this is left to the iron and steel industry? What is the co-operation, if any, between the industry and the Ministries?
May I ask whether there is an officer in the Ministry of Supply whose duty it is to attend to this matter and whose duty might be comparable to that of the Controller of Salvage, a position which existed in the last war? During the last war, too, there was the honorary advisors scheme which, I think, was a great success. May I ask whether there is any possibility of this scheme being re-started? I know that in 104 months from November, 1939, to June, 1948, the local authorities alone collected nearly 1¾ million tons of ferrous metal scrap and they also collected 53,500 tons of non-ferrous scrap. May I ask how the figures of collections made by local authorities today compare with the figures I have quoted for the war years?
Could not the local authorities be asked to do more in this matter? I believe that householders have much old iron—old flat irons, saucepans, fenders, broken firegrates, old bedsteads, old tins—which they would gladly be rid of, if they knew just how to get rid of it. Some local authorities, I know, collect this scrap metal, but I believe that in some of the


Metropolitan boroughs they barge such scrap down the Thames for tipping, on the ground that recovery would not warrant the cost of installing segregation equipment.
Could not the Ministry advise here? Indeed, could not all the tips throughout the country be searched, and even the old bombed sites, although I believe there is not a great deal of scrap metal left today on the bombed sites. We know there is a scarcity of scrap and we also know there is a scarcity of tin. Recently, railwaymen were asked to look out for old scrap along their 19,000 miles of track. That appeal has, I understand, gone to the staff, which numbers 590,000.
May I ask what is being done in the other nationalised undertakings? What of the Coal Board? Is not there some scrap in the disused collieries and other workings? Have all these been combed for the possibility of finding scrap metal? Has any help been sought from the Gas and Electricity Boards? Or the Transport Commission? Or even from the Armed Services, because it is my belief that in these undertakings, quite apart from the homes and factories, there is much scrap metal which, in the aggregate, would make a useful contribution to our supply of raw materials.
I know that in many cases scrap merchants could not give an economic price. I therefore ask—is any subsidy being given, or has any subsidy been paid? If so, how is this administered, or does only the iron and steel industry make an offer of subsidy? In July next the last of London's tramcars will run and in the 350 miles of routes formerly covered, I maintain there is much scrap metal. Are these lines to be recovered? Cannot the Chancellor of the Exchequer be prevailed on to case the restriction on road expenditure where tramlines could usefully be retrieved?

Mr. L. M. Lever: As in Manchester?

Wing Commander Bullus: Yes, as in Manchester, and, I think, in Liverpool where the iron and steel industry gave a subsidy as it was an uneconomic proposition, and a certain amount of metal was taken from those lines. Some road expenditure would be welcomed in London, because the wood setts are dangerous in bad weather, and this would be a use-

ful opportunity of repairing and maintaining these roads, and, at the same time, getting scrap metal. There are other sources of scrap, too numerous to mention. In the main it is the public who must help. I am sorry to think that expert opinion suggests that 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. of the people are indifferent to salvage drives.
There is one other source that is worth investigating. There are thousands of electrical shops up and down the country holding thousands of tons of nuts and bolts in stock because there are so many different types of thread. This is waste, because so much is kept in stock that could otherwise be used. Is it not possible to have a standardised thread and thus make available all these other nuts and bolts which are really waste because they are kept in stock and are not likely to be used. Could the Ministry not give a lead here?
These are a few suggestions. There are many others. I think the chief question which might be asked is whether the gravity of the scrap position is really realised, even by the 3,000 scrap merchants in this country? I believe the position has to be made known and kept continually publicised. An appeal must be made on the grounds of patriotism. I risk a charge of being called Autolycus, because of the picking up unconsidered trifles, but I think it will have been worth while if, by a debate such as this and by publicity, we can make our nation become more scrap conscious. If this debate helps in that matter I suggest it will not have been in vain.

1.24 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. A. R. W. Low): I am sure that the House is grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus) for the virile speech he has made. I would like to thank him for the kind things he said about me, which were somewhat embarrassing, and for giving me notice of the points he has made so clearly and concisely.
I wish to deal only with these points relating to metal, as he would expect when he asked me to reply to the debate. He made one reference to non-ferrous metal and I will make one in my reply. I think he will forgive me if I do not reply to him seriatim. I would like to make


a point of general principle relating to salvage and waste material. All experience has shown that the best salvage schemes are those which use practical methods of recovery of particular commodities. It is most important to salvage the maximum of materials most economically. Salvage is essentially an economic proposition, it is unquestionably the responsibility for salvage rests with the industry which uses it.
This, I think—I hope the House will agree—is especially true of iron and steel scrap. There are 69 different types of ferrous scrap. The scrap merchants have to be, and are, experts in their trade. They and the iron and steel making industry know what can be used, how it can be used and how the materials should be collected, sorted and broken down to the required size.
The Ministry of Supply about which my hon. and gallant Friend asked, has no administrative, executive or financial responsibility for the procurement or collection or iron and steel scrap, or, indeed, of any scrap. We naturally dispose of our own scrap as quickly as we can, but, having said that, I must add that we have a joint responsibility for the iron and steel industry and we must, therefore, be concerned, as indeed hon. Members in the House are, with the steps that are being taken to procure and collect the scrap that the industry needs so badly.
My right hon. Friend has an honorary adviser—my hon. and gallant Friend mentioned this—who is the head of one of the largest scrap merchants in the world. My right hon. Friend has been in touch with other Ministers and has invited, and secured, their active help; for example, the Ministers in charge of the Service Departments and those in charge of other Departments who have a chance of influencing the disposal of scrap.
My hon. and gallant Friend made it clear that he understood the importance of scrap to the steel industry. There could, of course, be no doubt about that, but any opportunity that any of us have to make it more clear should, I am sure, be taken. One ton of scrap makes one ton of new steel. This one ton of scrap in steel making can replace one ton of pig iron and thereby save one ton of coke, which is in very short supply. Scrap

makes steel quicker and in some cases better than pig iron can.
My hon. and gallant Friend quoted some figures. I will give him some which I think will reassure him. In 1951 just over 58 per cent. of the materials used for steel making were scrap. The previous year the proportion was 63 per cent. Pre-war, it used to be about 57 per cent.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Can my hon. Friend say how much out of those percentages was imported and how much was home collected?

Mr. Low: The amount imported has varied over the last few years, but last year and this year there has been a substantial reduction, and it is because there has been this substantial reduction that it is so important at the moment that we should try to increase the amount of scrap which is "thrown up" as it is called, at home.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) anticipated the next point that I was about to make. My hon. and gallant Friend mentioned the non-ferrous metal industry. It may interest him to know that scrap forms about 42 per cent. of the materials consumed in production. The consumption of scrap in 1951 was greater than in the war years. The steelworks purchased in 1951 about 250,000 tons of scrap more than their average annual purchase between 1940 and 1947.
Actually, the total amount of scrap used in 1951 in the industry was just over 9 million tons. That was consumed in steelworks and steel foundries. Of this the industry's own arisings amounted to nearly half. The rest comes from process scrap in the engineering industry, from capital scrap—that is, machinery and plant which is no longer of use—from domestic scrap such as is collected by the local authorities or by house-to-house collectors, from farm scrap, and from such operations as the removal of tramlines. I shall deal with some of these in a moment.
There is no doubt that the engineering industry, as a matter of course, gets rid of its process scrap as soon as it can. There is, however, some reason to believe that more could be done by industry to dispose of obsolete plant and machinery for which it has no further use. I have


heard reports of excellent results in certain areas of local factory scrap drives organised by enthusiastic managing directors, and I would like to appeal for more special efforts.
It is on the other matters that my hon. and gallant Friend has particularly addressed questions to me, and which are the particular concern of the Scrap Drive Organisation. This Organisation was set up in January, 1951, by the British Iron and Steel Federation and the Joint Iron Council in close collaboration with the National Federation of Scrap Iron, Steel, and Metal Merchants. It launched this drive with the full support of the Ministry of Supply. In December last year, my right hon. Friend saw senior officials of the Scrap Drive Organisation to discuss what else could be done to increase collections, and thus help the substantial reduction of imported scrap.
Following that meeting the Organisation decided to intensify the scrap drive this year. Some 3,700 scrap merchants are licensed to trade in ferrous scrap, and I can assure the hon. Member that these merchants appreciate the national importance of their work. The scrap drive works through 10 district scrap drive committees, the vice-chairmen of which are leading scrap merchants in the district. The drive has been complimented by the scrap panel of the Economic Commission for Europe, which visited this country last year.
That Commission reported that the way the drive was organised in Great Britain could serve as an example for other countries. Hon. Members may be familiar with the figure of "Jack Scrap," which appears in many advertisements in this country. It has been adopted by the German industry for its scrap drive, with the name of "Schrott Otto." Scrap merchants are making every effort to improve collections and deliveries. In the first quarter of 1952, 2,000 more tons of scrap were delivered to steel works than in the first quarter of 1951. It may well be that the substantial increase in price last August encouraged the merchants.
Domestic scrap includes tins and other things which are put into refuse-bins and other ironware, etc., which is kept at home but no longer needed. There are 490 local authorities covering half of our population of 25 million, which are supporting the scrap drive and are separating

and baling the scrap, or have arranged for the separation and baling of their scrap to be done by other local authorities. It might interest the House to know that to equip all the remaining important local authorities would cost at least £850,000, would take a long time, and would add to the tonnage of recoverable scrap only about 60,000 tons. I am aware of the special problem of certain riverside Metropolitan boroughs. I understand that about 6,000 tons of scrap is sent down the river each year and dumped. The only practicable scheme to save this scrap would cost about £250,000.
The Scrap Drive Organisation is always ready to consider and advise on any proposals put forward by these local authorities or by others. There is a special problem in regard to tin cans. There is first the problem which the local authorities have in collecting and baling, and then the problem of de-tinning. If the cans are not de-tinned they are useful to blast furnaces for making pig iron: if they are de-tinned they are useful for making steel. At present, de-tinning works in this country take only some 15,000 tons of used tin cans.
The scrap drive has also been successful in securing the agreement of some local authorities to make house-to-house collections in places where the private house-to-house rag and bone collector does not call. Experience in several boroughs, for example, Warrington, Walsall, Sunderland and Swansea indicates that there may be available about two tons of ferrous scrap per 1,000 people. This house-to-house collection is only practicable in populous areas so, in time, industry may get 50,000 tons from this source.
Special efforts have been made to collect scrap from farms. The 1951 drive for farm scrap was launched with the full support of the National Farmers' Union. In the country the scrap drive has received good co-operation and assistance from the farmers; but in some parts of the country more can still be done. In some counties special schemes have been adopted to arrange for the collection from farms scattered over a wide area. The special scheme involves a payment per ton for the scrap at the farm, but in some cases there are arrangements for collection at nominated points, sometimes railway station yards to which the farmers bring their scrap—and there a


larger sum is paid in respect of transport costs of the scrap to those places. The scheme is reported to be working well.
Several questions have been raised recently on the arrangements made for the lifting of tramways no longer required for the running of trams. The total amount of steel laid in these tramway tracks which are going out of action is 50,000 tons in London and in the provinces is believed to be about 22,000 tons. The cost of lifting these rails is often heavy and special financial arrangements are therefore made by the Scrap Drive Organisation with local authorities where it is necessary. I understand that the Scrap Drive are in touch with the L.C.C. on the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend.
So far, tram lines for use as scrap have been secured from 11 local authorities. This tramline scrap is particularly good steel and, therefore, a valuable scrap to the steel-making industry. There are, of course, other sources of scrap such as the collieries, the railways and other nationalised industries. All the nationalised industries are co-operating in the scrap drive but here, too, it is important not to expect too much in the amount of scrap that can be made available by special efforts from any one source. Recently, there was a special survey of 30 collieries which disclosed that the total amount of scrap lying uncollected in them amounted to less than 700 tons.
I might interpose here to say that as other industries are helping the iron and steel makers, so the iron and steel makers help other industry and the public by making their coke-oven by-products available. Each year they sell 22,000,000,000 cubic feet of gas to outside consumers.
My hon. and gallant Friend mentioned nuts and bolts. It may interest him to know that nuts and bolts are now being manufactured to standard specifications laid down by the British Standards Institution. These nuts and bolts are described by the type of their thread, the pitch and number of threads to the inch. The main threads approved by the BSI are known in the trade as the BA (British Association) and Whitworth patterns.
I hope that all I have said will assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the metal-using industry and Government Departments, the scrap merchants and the iron and steel makers are all co-operating in the renewed effort to increase the amount of scrap to be delivered to the iron and steel makers. The Ministry of Supply follow the progress of the scrap drive with the closest concern and their fullest support, but there can be no doubt that the right machinery for the drive for the collection of scrap, is that which the industry itself has set up.
The House will probably be aware that on 5th March last my right hon. and noble Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced, in another place, that he was setting up an advisory panel on waste materials. The Chairman of the Scrap Drive Organisation has been appointed a member of this advisory panel. The panel will be working, when it considers steel scrap, in the closest co-operation with the Scrap Drive Organisation, and will be making inquiries in the course of the next few weeks into many of the problems which I have mentioned tonight.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter to Two o'Clock a.m.